(navigation image)
Home American Libraries | Canadian Libraries | Universal Library | Community Texts | Project Gutenberg | Biodiversity Heritage Library | Children's Library | Additional Collections
Search: Advanced Search
Anonymous User (login or join us)
Upload
See other formats

Full text of "Mexico-United States Interparliamentary Group : a sixteen-year history : a report"

7 fa 



94th Congress 1 
2d Session / 



COMMITTEE PRINT 



THE MEXICO-UNITED STATES 

INTERPARLIAMENTARY GROUP 

A SIXTEEN- YEAR HISTORY 



A REPORT 

BY 

Senator MIKE MANSFIELD 

Majority Leader, United States Senate 




,/". 



ff//t/S*,,^_ 



/avow* 



fA> 



SEPTEMBER 1976 \^ 



JLt- 






#& 



•&*> 









& <^s^' it 



Printed for the use of the Committee on Foreign Relations 



76-432 O 



U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE 
WASHINGTON : 1976 



COMMITTEE ON FOREIGN RELATIONS 



JOHN SPARKMAN, Alabama, Chairvian 



MIKE MANSFIELD, Montana 

FRANK CHURCH, Idaho 

STUART SYMINGTON, Missouri 

CLAIBORNE PELL, Rhode Island 

GALE W. McGEE, Wyoming 

GEORGE S. McGOVERN, South Dakota 

HUBERT H. HUMPHREY, Minnesota 

DICK CLARK, Iowa 

JOSEPH R. BIDEN, Jr., Delaware 



CLIFFORD P. CASE, New Jersey 
JACOB K. JAVITS, New York 
HUGH SCOTT, Pennsylvania 
JAMES B. PEARSON, Kansas 
CHARLES H. PERCY, Illinois 
ROBERT P. GRIFFIN, Michigan 



Pat M. Holt, Chief of Staff 
Arthur M. Kuhl, Chief Clerk 

(n) 



CONTENTS 

Page 

Letter of transmittal v 

Introduction 1 

Conferences 

First Meeting, Guadalajara, Mexico, February 6-11, 1961 7 

Second Meeting, Washington, D.C., May 14-17, 1962 11 

Third Meeting, Guanajuato, Mexico, March 15-24, 1963 15 

Fourth Meeting, Washington, D.C., March 5-12, 1964 19 

Fifth Meeting, La Paz, Mexico, February 11-17, 1965 23 

Sixth Meeting, Washington, D.C., February 9-12, 1966 27 

Seyenth Meeting, Oaxaca, Mexico, February 9-14, 1967 31 

Eighth Meeting, Honolulu, Hawaii, April 12-16, 1968 35 

Ninth Meeting, Aguascalientes, Mexico, April 2-8, 1969 38 

Tenth Meeting, Washington, May 4-10, 1970 42 

Eleyenth Meeting, Puerto Vallarta, May 27-31, 1971 45 

Twelfth Meeting, New Orleans, May 16-21, 1972 48 

Thirteenth Meeting, Guanajuato, Mexico, May 24-29, 1973 52 

Fourteenth Meeting, Washington, D.C., May 13-15, 1974 56 

Fifteenth Meeting, Campeche, Mexico, March 26-31, 1975 60 

Sixteenth Meeting, Atlanta, Georgia, February 25-29, 1976 65 

Appendix: 

1. Authorization of Mexico-U.S. Interparliamentary Group — Text of 

Public Law 86-420 73 

2. Chamizal Agreement 75 

3. Treaty Resolving Boundary Differences 83 

4. 1944 Water Treaty 101 

5. Colorado River Salinity Agreement 127 

6. Colorado Riyer Basin Salinity Control Act — Text of Public Law 

93-320 _ 131 

(in) 



Digitized by the Internet Archive 
in 2013 



http://archive.org/details/medstatOOunit 



LETTER OF TRANSMITTAL 

September 10, 1976. 
Hon. John Sparkman 
Chairman, Committee on Foreign Relations, 
U.S. Senate, 
Washington, B.C. 

Dear Mr. Chairman: As you know, it has been my privilege to be 
involved in all of the sixteen conferences held by the Mexico-United 
States Interparliamentary Group. 

At this year's conference in Atlanta, the leaders of the Mexican 
delegation suggested that this might be a good time to put together 
a review of our sixteen conference sessions. As Chairman of the U.S. 
Senate delegation, I endorsed the idea and subsequently asked Bob 
Docken r of the staff of the Foreign Relations Committee to work 
with specialists from the Library of Congress on the preparation of 
such a review. That review has now been completed. I respectfully 
request that it be printed for the use of the Foreign Relations Com- 
mittee and for the information of the Senate as a whole. 

I want to thank Bob Dockery for his assistance on this project, 
as well as the following individuals from the Library of Congress: 
Rosemary P. Jackson, Foreign Affairs Anal} T st; K. Larry Storrs, 
Analyst in Latin American Affairs; Barry Sklar, Specialist in Latin 
American Affairs; Kathryn Hume, William Raiford, Charlotte 
Phillips and John Chwat. 
Sincerely, 

Mike Mansfield. 

(V) 



THE MEXICO-UNITED STATES INTERPARLIAMENTARY 
GROUP— A SIXTEEN-YEAR HISTORY 



Introduction 

Sixteen years have passed since the inception of the Mexico-United 
States Interparliamentary Group. During that time, events in Mexico 
and the United States, as well as relations between the two nations, 
have unfolded in the context of developments which have shaken the 
world and challenged the will and imagination of all nations. 

The past sixteen years were the years of the Alliance for Progress, the 
Cuban missile crisis, the Dominican crisis, the Vietnam tragedy, and 
two wars in the Middle East. They also were the years that gave 
birth to the era of detente, the opening to the People's Republic of 
China, and the energy crunch. 

But throughout this period, Mexico and the United States, both 
individually and collectively, have weathered the storms and capi- 
talized on new opportunities for cooperation under the firm and 
experienced guidance of their respective leaders — Lopez Mateos and 
John Kennedy; Diaz Ordaz and Lyndon Johnson; Luis Echeverria and 
Richard Nixon and Gerald Ford. 

Just as the chief executives of our two great nations have made a 
practice of close, personal dialogue and consultation, so, too, have the 
legislative representatives of Mexico and the United States. Though 
the congressional meetings frequently lack the publicity that Presiden- 
tial discussions attract, they are no less important — as our Chief 
Executives would be the first to admit. Indeed, the Chief Executives of 
the United States from Kennedy to Ford and the Chief Executives of 
Mexico from Lopez Mateos to Luis Echeverria — all of them have given 
their unqualified support to our legislative conferences and each Presi- 
dent has made a point of meeting regularly with the delegates. 

As the Presidents of our two nations have known over the last six- 
teen vears, interparliamentary meetings not only strengthen the bonds 
of friendship and understanding — but, in addition, they just make 
good, common sense. 

Thus, over the years, members of the Mexican and United States 
Congresses, meeting annually as the Mexico-United States Inter- 
parliamentary Group, have been discussing issues such as trade, border 
problems, immigration and narcotics control. These issues may not 
require "shuttle diplomacy" but they do affect the lives of our people 
and necessitate frequent attention and consideration. 

Our interparliamentary meetings have and continue to serve this 
purpose. In a spirit of cooperation and mutual respect, Mexican and 
United States legislators have become keenly aware of the problems, 
pressures and concerns faced by their counterparts. And working 
together, they have endeavored to arrive at mutually acceptable 
solutions. With the understanding and knowledge gained from their 

(l) 



annual meetings, the delegates have returned to their capitols to work 
for the implementation of those solutions through their respective 
political processes. 

Because of the record — summarized in this volume — I firmly believe 
the Mexico-United States Interparliamentary Group has contributed 
substantially to the growing understanding and to the easing of 
tensions between Mexico and the United States. It is, I think, a tribute 
to these meetings that relations between our two nations have achieved 
such a high level of mutual respect, cooperation and understanding 
despite the variety of problems we have faced and are sure to face in 
the future. Much of the success of the meetings can be measured in 
terms of the amicable and cordial relations which have been developed, 
but in addition, these meetings have to their credit such solid achieve- 
ments as the Chamizal settlement and the Colorado River Salinity 
Agreement — both directly attributable to legislative initiatives re- 
sulting from the conferences. 

The legislative origins of the Mexico-United States Interparliamen- 
tar}^ Group go back to 1959, when the Mexican Congress took the lead 
and approved legislation authorizing its members to participate in 
annual discussions with members of the United States Congress, which 
approved similar legislation the following year. The intent of both 
U.S. and Mexican legislators was to provide a mechanism for informal 
discussions of mutual problems. 

More specifically, United States participation in the Mexico-United 
States Interparliamentary Group was authorized by Public Law 
86-420, approved April 9, 1960. This authorization originated as 
House Joint Resolution 283 by Representative D. S. Saund. Then 
representative Joe Montoya and other members of the House in- 
troduced complementary bills. A companion measure in the Senate 
was Senate Joint Resolution 102 sponsored by Senator Chavez and 
strongly supported by Senators Kuchel, Engle, Yarborough, Morse 
and Gruening. 

Under Public Law 86-420, the United States Group is comprised 
of 12 Members of the Senate, appointed by the Vice-President, and 12 
Members of the House, appointed by the Speaker. At least four of the 
Senators and four of the Representatives are members of the Foreign 
Relations and International Relations Committees respectively. The 
meetings are held annually, on odd-numbered years in Mexico and 
even-numbered years in the United States. 

The initiative to establish the meetings was given additional 
impetus by the enthusiastic support of President John Kennedy. 
While still in the Senate, both John Kennedy and Lyndon Johnson 
voted for the Act establishing this interparliamentary group. Equally 
strong support was also forthcoming from their successors, Richard 
Nixon and Gerald Ford. 

But the creation of the Mexico-United States Interparliamentary 
Conference coincided with those exciting days when President Ken- 
nedy was vigorously forging a new Latin American policy for the 
United States in the name of the Alliance for Progress. 

Looking back over the pages of history, I think it is interesting to 
recall that just 3 weeks prior to our first meeting in Guadalajara, 
President Kennedy outlined, in his Inaugural Address, the objectives 
of the Alliance for Progress. He specifically expressed interest in our 



first meeting when he urged the United States representatives to meet 
with their Mexican colleagues and convey the sincere, good wishes of 
his administration. I remember those days well, having had the honor 
of serving as chairman of the Senate delegation at the Guadalajara 
meeting. 

While those of us who have participated in these meetings need no 
convincing of their importance to strengthening the bonds of friend- 
ship between our two countries, let me point to some very practical 
examples of the results of our efforts to help strengthen "the ties that 
bind:" 

— In just five short years, from 1970 to 1974, Mexican trade with the 
United States more than doubled. 

— Today, half of Mexico's international trade is with the United 
States. 

— Mexico is our largest customer in Latin America and our fourth 
largest in the world. In fact, last year Mexico came very close to 
overtaking West Germany as our third largest export market. 

— United States investors hold approximately eighty percent of the 
$3 billion invested in Mexico by foreign nationals. 

— Mexican tourists visiting the United States account for approxi- 
mately twenty-five percent of the total annual U.S. income from 
tourism. 

These are just a few of the examples that evidence the growing 
economic interdependence which our two nations share. These 
examples also indicate the increasing maturity of the Mexican economy 
based on a generation of economic stability. The recent decision to 
float the peso will further ensure stability over the long-term. It was 
a difficult but necessary decision. It was a courageous decision, the 
kind of decision that the world has come to expect from Mexico and 
its leaders. 

During this period of economic adjustment, I know the United States 
will do all that it can to be of assistance to Mexico. As we have learned, 
such assistance mutually serves our bilateral interests and our own 
self-interests as well. 

Students of Mexican and United States history, as well as those of us 
who have been close to Mexico, know that our relations have not 
always been viewed in such a cooperative light. Battles have been 
fought, territory has been lost, and sovereign rights have been in- 
fringed. Regrettably, these were some of the hallmarks of our begin- 
nings, but during the intervening years, we have come a long way 
together. Our nations have matured and we have treated each other 
with respect for many years, relegating the negative to the back pages 
of history where it properly belongs. 

Simply stated, we have come from a time of hostility and resentment 
to a time of cooperation and understanding. 

From the turmoil and upheaval of armed struggle, the Mexican Rev- 
olution, implementing its profound political and social principles, has 
forged a proud and powerful nation. Mexico's unique and democratic 
political system has been a model of stability, enabling Mexico to make 
the kind of sterling achievements that have brought it to the forefront 
of the nations of the world. 

Mexico has developed from a rural based economy to an industrial- 
ized nation. In recent years, she has achieved ever higher production 
rates in petroleum, petrochemicals, steel electric energy and fertilizer. 



With her recent oil discoveries in the South, Mexico's industrial 
development is sure to be accelerated. On the social front, a similar 
record of achievement can easily be found. Educational facilities have 
been expanded and social welfare programs to meet the needs of the 
people have always been given high priority by the Mexican Govern- 
ment. Public transportation facilities, housing, health care — these are 
all areas in which the Mexican people and their elected officials have 
made tremendous strides. 

Internationally, Mexico, the most populous Spanish speaking coun- 
try, has taken its rightful place as a leader of the Third World. With 
the principle of non-intervention serving as its cornerstone, Mexican 
foreign policy has had tremendous impact on the international com- 
munity. The Charter of Economic Rights and Duties of States, 
approved by the United Nations General Assembly in 1974, was the 
creation of President Luis Echeverria. Moreover, Mexico's imaginative 
and independent course has led it to leadership in the movement to 
establish a nuclear free zone in Latin America, which resulted in the 
Treaty of Tlatelolco ; to enthusiastic support for the recent establish- 
ment of the Latin American Economic System (SELA) ; and to a 
central role in the creation of the Caribbean Multinational Fleet. 
Looking beyond the Hemisphere, Mexico recently signed important 
trade agreements with both the European Economic Community and 
the Council for Mutual Economic Assistance (COMECON). 

This is the kind of record that any nation would be proud to claim 
as its own. It is an enviable record and it rightfully belongs to Mexico. 
She has worked around the clock to establish and maintain it. 

Those of us who have participated regularly in our annual inter- 
parliamentary^ conferences bear witness to Mexico's very rapid 
progress in a very short period of time. We have gained not only a 
deep appreciation of Mexico's achievements but, I think, it is fair to 
say that we have made a solid, lasting contribution to a more mature, 
cooperative relationship between our two nations. This is not to say 
that the future of our relations will be devoid of problems; indeed, 
there will be problems, but because of the established procedures of 
the Mexico-United States Interparliamentary Group, there also will 
be solutions — legislative solutions. I believe the prospects are very 
promising, as I tried to indicate during the closing session of this 
year's conference in Atlanta: 

. . . the experience we have gathered during the past sixteen 
3 7 ears casts a bright and illuminating future for the next sixteen. 

The following review of the past 16 conferences held by the Mexico- 
United States Interparliamentary Group will, I believe, reveal the 
basis for my optimism. 



CONFERENCES 



First Meeting, Guadalajara, Jalisco, Mexico, February 6-11, 1961 

United States Delegates 

From the Senate: 

Mike Mansfield of Montana. 

Dennis Chavez of New Mexico. 

Bourke B. Hickenlooper of Iowa. 

Wayne Morse of Oregon. 

Andrew F. Schoeppel of Kansas. 

John Marshall Butler of Maryland. 

Albert Gore of Tennessee. 

Carl T. Curtis of Nebraska. 

Clair Engle of California. 

Ernest Gruening of Alaska. 

Eugene J. McCarthy of Minnesota. 

Claiborne Pell of Rhode Island. 
From the House: 

D. S. Saund of California. 

Walter Norblad of Oregon. 

William L. Springer of Illinois. 

Joel T. Brovhill of Virginia. 

J. T. Rutherford of Texas. 

Joseph N. Montoya of New Mexico. 

Robert N. Nix of Pennsylvania. 

Harris B. McDowell of Delaware. 

Edward J. Derwinski of Illinois. 

Daniel K. Inouye of Hawaii. 

Ancher Nelsen of Minnesota. 

Mexican Delegates 
From the Senate: 

Elisco Aragon Rebolledo of Morelos. 
Rodolfo Brena Torres of Oaxaca. 
Abelardo de la Torre Grajales of Chiapas. 
Guillermo Ibarra of Sonora. 
Fernando Lanz Duret Sierra of Campeche. 
Emilio Martinez Manautou of Tamaulipas. 
Antonio Mena Brito of Yucatan. 
Manuel Moreno Sanchez of Aguascalientes. 
Guillermo Ramirez Valadez of Jalisco. 
Carlos Roman Celis of Guerrero. 
Maximiliano Ruiz Castaneda of Mexoic. 
Angel Santos Cervantes of Nuevo Leon. 
Juan Manuel Teran Mata of Tamaulipas. 
Francisco Velasco Curiel of Colima. 

(7) 



8 

From the Chamber of Deputies: 

Florencio Barrera Fuentes of Coahuila. 

Antonio Castro Leal of the Federal District. 

Carlos Hank Gonzalez of Mexico. 

Arturo Llorente Gonzalez of Veracruz. 

Enrique Olivares Santana of Aguascalientes. 

Jose Ortiz Avila of Campeche. 

Jose Perwz Moreno of Jalisco. 

Juan Sabines Gutierrez of Chiapas. 

Enrique Sada Baigts of Oaxaca. 

Guillermo Salas Armendariz of Durango. 

Emilio Sanchez Piedras of Tlaxcala. 

Jose Vallego Novelo of Yucatan. 

Manuel Yanez Ruiz of Hidalgo. 
The formal opening of the Mexico-United States Interparliamentary 
Group took place on March 6 with remarks by Senator Guillermo 
Ramirez Valadez and Senator Mansfield. Wreaths were placed before 
the statues of Abraham Lincoln and Benito Juarez. The U.S. delega- 
tion voted to present a plaque to be placed in the Casa de la Cultura to 
mark the site of this first meeting of the Interparliamentary Group. 

The formal meetings concluded on February 9. The following day 
the American delegation proceeded to Mexico City where they were 
received by President Adolf o Lopez Mateos and Foreign Minister 
Manuel Tello. The U.S. delegates departed for Washington on Febru- 
ary 12. 

The work of the conference was organized into four committees: 
Foreign Investment; Foreign Trade; Border Matters; and Cultural 
Interchange. Each committee met twice, and it was understood that 
there would be no voting, that neither delegation had the authority to 
speak for its government, and that no attempt would be made to reach 
agreements. The objective of this first meeting, and for all subsequent 
meetings of the Group, was to conduct full and frank discussion of 
common problems and exposition of individual points of view. 

Committee I — Foreign Investment 

In reference to foreign investment the Mexican delegation made the 
following points: 

(1) Capital accumulation, although it was increasing, was still 
insufficient for the country's needs. Thus, foreign investment was 
needed and welcome, provided it did not seek special privileges and 
that it supplemented, rather than competed with, local invest- 
ment. 

(2) Mexico preferred "indirect investment" — which was to 
say, either loans to public agencies to be used at their discretion, 
or private participation on a minority basis in Mexican enter- 
prises. 

(3) Particular criticisms were leveled at private foreign invest- 
ment which competed with Mexican private business (e.g. retail 
trade, soft drinks, detergents), in automobile assembly operations 
(it was said that despite local assembly, automobiles cost more in 
Mexico than in the U.S.), and in mining (it was said that Mexico's 
mineral resources were not being used for the benefit of Mexico, 
but for export). 



9 

(4) Export of minerals and repatriation of profits from other 
private investment in Mexico resulted in a net loss of capital to 
Mexico. 

(5) The Mexican delegation stated that although it did not 
offer special treatment to foreign investment, it did offer many 
attractions, e.g. good profit prospects, free convertibility of capital 
and profits, moderate tax rates, subsidies for new necessary indus- 
tries, cheap fuel, low transportation rates, easily trainable labor, a 
stable currency, and political and social stability. 

(6) The Mexican Constitution, the delegation pointed out, con- 
siders private property as an element to serve social needs, and 
Mexico reserves its sovereign right to put social restrictions on 
property. However, the Constitution also provides for compensa- 
tion for property which may be expropriated for social purposes. 

The United States delegation made the following points: 

(1) U.S. private business does not seek special status, but it 
does not want to be discriminated against. 

(2) The right of Mexico, or any other country to accept or 
reject private investment on its own terms is recognized, but it 
must also be recognized that private investment will go where 
its treatment and prospects are best. 

(3) Foreign investment in Mexico cod tributes substantially to 
Mexico's economic growth. In 1955, for example, foreign invest- 
ment accounted for $240 million in the Mexican national product. 
Many foreign companies reinvest a large part of their earnings. 
Even among those companies which are directly competitive with 
Mexican business, some of them bolster Mexican industry through 
a policy of local procurement and give Mexican consumers good 
quality merchandise at low prices. 

(4) It was suggested that some American businessmen are 
uncertain of the meaning of Mexican laws relating to foreign 
investment and the laws should be clarified. 

(5) It was recognized that Mexico, like any other country, has 
the right of expropriation with compensation, and no objection 
was seen in the proposal for participation with Mexican capital 
on a minority basis. 

(6) Mexico has an excellent international credit rating, and the 
hope was expressed that its borrowings would be for long terms 
at low interest rates. 

Committee II — Foreign Trade 

Members of the Mexican delegation expressed their interest in 
"trade, not aid" during these discussions. Among the commercial 
problems cited by the Mexican delegation were: price fluctuations in 
basic commodities, U.S. quotas and tariffs on imports, and U.S. 
subsidies on cotton exports. In addition to cotton, the following com- 
modities were discussed: lead, zinc, coffee, shrimp, fruits, vegetables, 
hard fibers, and sugar. The Mexican delegation expressed special 
concern about future exports of lead and zinc. 

The U.S. delegation pointed out its own problems in related U.S. 
matters such as unemployment which might be affected by changes 
in tariffs or quotas on certain U.S. imports. However, the delegation 
did point out that the cotton export subsidy had been reduced from 
8 to 6 cents and that market prices had remained stable. As for 



10 

eliminating the subsidy altogether, an American delegate suggested 
that this might actually stimulate U.S. cotton production while a 
Mexican delegate thought it would probably result in decreased pro- 
duction as the land was put to more profitable use. 

The Mexican delegation expressed satisfaction over President 
Kennedy's decision not to establish tariffs or quotas on henequen, 
bailing twine, and cordage. 

Committee III — Border Matters 

Under the topic of border matters, two main points were discussed — 
tourists and braceros. The Mexican delegation was especially unhappy 
with President Kennedy's recommendation that Congress reduce from 
$500 to $100 the value of goods which tourists could bring into the 
United States duty free. With reference to braceros, the Mexican 
delegation pointed out that the hourly minimum wage of 50 cents had 
not been increased since the original agreement of 1942 ; that insurance 
coverage of braceros was inadequate; that arrangements for feeding 
the workers were unsatisfactory and that sometimes, in the interest of 
harvesting crops rapidly, so many braceros were recruited that their 
work did not last long enough to justify the trip. 

The American delegation agreed to recommend careful considera- 
tion of the matters discussed. The delegates expressed hope that 
crossing the border to either country could be simplified. With refer- 
ence to the braceros, the U.S. delegates pointed out that although the 
minimum wage had not been officially increased, the average wage 
amounted to 90 cents an hour. The bracero program was called the 
best Point 4 program of the U.S. Government in that, through the 
program, Mexican workers learned various agricultural techniques. 

Committee IV — Cultural Interchange 

Both delegations agreed that cultural exchanges should be supported 
and increased. Activities suggested were: wider diffusion of publica- 
tions, library services, and radio and television in a reciprocal manner; 
increased efforts to place exchange students with families in the host 
country; establishment of training programs in U.S. industry for 
Mexican students; extended scholarship periods; and establishment of 
inter-university exchange programs which would encourage the ex- 
change of students and professors. 



Second Meeting, Washington, D.C., May 14-17, 1962 

United States Delegates 

From the Senate: 

John Sparkman, of Alabama. 

Wayne Morse, of Oregon. 

George A. Smathers, of Florida. 

Albert Gore, of Tennessee. 

Clair Engle, of California. 

Ernest Gruening, of Alaska. 

Lee Metcalf, of Montana. 

Homer E. Capehart, of Indiana. 

Thomas H. Kuchel, of California. 

Barry Gold water, of Arizona. 

John G. Tower, of Texas. 
From the House: 

D. S. Saund, of California. 

J. T. Rutherford, of Texas. 

Joseph M. Montoya, of New Mexico. 

Robert N. C. Nix, of Pennsylvania. 

Harris B. McDowell, Jr., of Delaware. 

Daniel K. Inouye, of Hawaii. 

L. Mendel Rivers, of South Carolina. 

Robert B. Chiperfield, of Illinois. 

J. Irving Whalley, of Pennsylvania. 

William L. Springer, of Illinois. 

Edward J. Derwinski, of Illinois. 

Ben Reifel, of South Dakota. 

Mexican Delegates 
From the Senate: 

Manuel Moreno Sanchez, of Aguascalientes. 
Eliseo Aragon Rebolledo, of Morelos. 
Angel Santos Cervantes, of Nuevo Leon. 
Manuel Hinojoso Ortiz, of Michoacan. 
Mauricio Magdaleno Cardona, of Zacatecas. 
Emilio Martinez Manautou, of Tamaulipas. 
Antonio Mena Brito, of Yucatan. 
Guillermo Ramirez Valadez, of Jalisco. 
Gustavo Vildosola Almada, of Baja California. 
Ramon Ruiz Vasconcelos, of Oaxaca. 
Carlos Roman Celis, of Guerrero. 
Juan Manuel Teran Mata, of Tamaulipas. 
From the Chamber of Deputies: 

Jose* Lopez Bermudez, of Guanajuato. 
Antonio Navarro Enemas, of Baja California. 
J. Jesus Gonzalez Gortazar, of Jalisco. 
Manuel Moreno Moreno, of Guanajuato. 

(11) 

76-432 O - 76 - 2 



12 

Filiberto Rubalcava Sanchez, of Jalisco. 

Gustavo Arevado Gardoqui, of Baja California. 

Jorge Rojo Lugo, of Hidalgo. 

Norberto Aguirre, of Oalaca. 

Roldolfo Echeverria Alvarez, of the Federal District. 

Alfredo Ruiseco Avellaneda, of Colima. 

Salvador Gonzalez Lobo, of Coahuila. 

Genaro Vazquez Colmemares, of Oaxaca. 

Rodrigo Moreno Zermeno, of Guanajuato. 
Formal opening of the second meeting of the Mexico-United States 
Interparliamentary Group took place on May 14 with welcoming 
remarks by Senator Sparkman, Secretary of State Dean Rusk, and 
Mexican Deputy Lopez Bermudes. Vice President Lyndon Johnson 
addressed the delegation at a luncheon on the same day. 

Work of the Group was organized into three panels: Foreign 
Investment and Foreign Trade; Border Matters and Cultural Ex- 
change; Hemispheric Peace and Security and the Alliance for Progress. 
In addition to the above panel discussions, the Mexican delegation 
visited sites in and around Washington such as Arlington National 
Cemetery and Williamsburg, Virginia. After the meetings concluded 
on May 14, the Mexican delegation proceeded to New York where 
they visited the United Nations and were welcomed by Mayor 
Wagner. On May 20 the delegation flew to Los Angeles where they 
remained until their departure to Mexico City on May 23. 

Panel I — Foreign Investment and Foreign Trade 

The United States delegation reiterated its belief in the mutual 
benefits of foreign investment and expressed its understanding of the 
principle of expropriation as long as action is followed by fair and 
prompt compensation. Members of the Mexican delegation, in turn, 
conceded their continued need for foreign investment but that it 
must be subject to national law and that it should be directed to the 
sectors designated as priority areas by the Mexican Government. 
The Mexican delegates concluded that despite these guidelines, 
Mexico remained a desirable place for foreign investment as a result 
of attractive laws, abundant natural resources, satisfactory market 
conditions, good profit returns, freedom to transfer capital, free 
monetary convertibility, moderate taxation, stimuli for reinvestment, 
low transportation rates, a stable exchange rate, and political stability. 

Foreign trade discussions focused on tariffs and quotas relating to 
agricultural and mineral commodities. It was pointed out by the 
Mexican delegation that the prices of these raw materials had declined 
in recent years as compared to the cost of needed manufactured 
goods — a situation which had contributed to an imbalance of trade 
and a decline in living standards and had caused difficulty in pur- 
chasing capital goods. The United States delegation responded with 
the suggestion that Mexico avail itself of the opportunity to participate 
in international consultations to find a means of stabilizing prices on 
basic commodities and to seek out compensatory financial arrange- 
ments. The Mexican delegation expressed pleasure with recent actions 
by the United States Government on these commercial problems. 
Specifically, they cited the application of the most-favored-nation 
clause, the increase in the sugar quota and the price of sugar, a new 
willingness to participate in international conventions on commodity 
agreements, and its support of the Alliance for Progress. 



13 

Other issues, such as the sales of surplus agricultural products 
payable in local currency and on long terms, subsidies, restrictive 
quotas, and high or prohibitive tariffs were still regarded as areas 
for discussion by Mexico. The delegation also noted that certain 
aspects of the 1962 Trade Expansion Act did not offer sufficient 
consideration to many commercial problems, though it was seen as an 
improvement on the Tariff Act of 1934 which had been in effect. 

The discussions on foreign trade also covered specific problems 
related to trade in cotton, coffee, sugar, lead, and zinc. In the case of 
cotton, the Mexican delegation expressed alarm over continued 
subsidies paid to U.S. cotton farmers which the Mexicans felt led 
to the dumping of surplus cotton on the world market at prices close 
to or below production costs. The delegation stated that the Mexican 
cotton industry would collapse if this policy continued. The United 
States delegation responded by explaining that subsidies to American 
farmers were temporary policy intended to aid farmers in the cotton 
belt until they could shift to a more suitable crop. 

With regard to the other agricultural products, the U.S. delegation 
indicated that they would expect Mexico to continue as our major 
source of agriculture products. For its part, the Mexican delegation 
noted the progress made in stabilizing coffee prices through inter- 
national cooperation. The Mexican delegation expressed hope that the 
U.S. would not revise the sugar bill, which would reduce the price of 
sugar substantially and decrease the Mexican quota. Such a move, 
they pointed out, would negate the positive aspects of the Mexican 
trade, such as its proximity to the United States, and would effect 
substantial economic hardship on the Mexican economy. 

In reference to the lead and zinc trade, the Mexican delegation 
suggested international cooperation would be the best means of assur- 
ing a fair price for the metals. The delegation further protested pro- 
posed U.S. actions which would fix quotas and increase tariffs. In turn, 
the U.S. delegation stated that it did not anticipate tariff changes on 
lead and zinc and that it was gratified by the progress made by the 
International Study Group on Lead and Zinc. The U.S. representa- 
tives explained that the policy on lead and zinc was dictated by defense 
considerations. 

Both the U.S. and Mexican delegations agreed that Mexican partici- 
pation in the Latin American Free Trade Association would prove 
beneficial to the United States and to all the Latin countries involved. 
Moreover, the U.S. delegates assured the Mexican delegation that U.S. 
trade with the European Economic Community would not be detri- 
mental to United States-Mexican commercial relations. 

Panel II — Border Matters and Cultural Exchange 

Included in these discussions were issues surrounding tourism in 
Mexico. Specifically, the proposed U.S. reduction in the duty free 
allowance for American tourists was cited as potentially damaging to 
the Mexican artisans who depend upon tourist expenditures for a 
livelihood. The American delegation suggested that if these items 
could be included under legislation covering reciprocal trade, Mexico 
might take steps to provide for the freer importation of certain goods 
bought by Mexican tourists. 

Also under border matters were discussions concerning the situation 
of the Mexican migratory workers in the U.S. The American delegation 



14 

pointed out the valuable role they play in U.S. agriculture and that 
these workers were deserving of minimum wages, insurance coverage, 
and respect. Both delegations called for better border control in order 
that these foreign nationals might be provided with appropriate visas 
which would state their necessity as employees in the U.S. 

The problem of the salinity of the Colorado River was also discussed 
as the treaty of 1944 did not address the question of water quality — an 
important issue since its deterioration had caused considerable damage 
in Baja California, rendering large tracts of land unproductive and dis- 
placing Mexican farmers. Although the U.S. delegates did not concede 
a legal obligation to insure the purity of the river, the members indi- 
cated that the United States was seeking a just solution to the problem. 

Finally, both delegations expressed a desire to step up activities in 
the area of cultural exchange. Suggestions included an increase in the 
number of student and scholar exchange programs along with corpo- 
rate and even governmental exchanges. 

Panel III — Hemispheric Peace and Security and the Alliance for 
Progress 

In addressing the questions of hemispheric peace and security, the 
U.S. delegation expressed its belief in the right of self-determination 
for each country. In particular, they cited the parallels in Mexican and 
American historical development which demonstrated this conviction. 
The delegation cited the activities of Cuba and the Soviet Union as 
the basis for U.S. concern over the possible subversion of other Latin 
American governments. They recommended the OAS report on sub- 
version to the Mexican delegates as background to understanding 
United States interest in combatting the spread of communism in the 
hemisphere. The delegation concluded by noting that under Article 6 of 
the Rio Treaty, the U.S. is committed to oppose communist subversion 
in the hemisphere. The Mexican delegation stated the Mexican 
Government's policy of strict non-intervention in the affairs of other 
Latin American countries. Regarding the Cuban issue, the delegation 
agreed that the apparent principles of the Castro government were in- 
compatible with the OAS Charter. Nevertheless, they did not regard 
these differences as a rationale for intervening in Cuban affairs. 

In discussing the Alliance for Progress, the Mexican delegation 
stressed two points: First, the Alliance should take into account the 
varied conditions among the countries so as to make it an effective 
program; second, the Alliance should not be promoted as an anti-com- 
munist campaign because it might move the oligarchies to a more 
reactionary stance in regard to relinquishing their power. 

Although the U.S. delegation still tended to regard the Alliance as a 
type of Marshall Plan to halt the spread of totalitarian governments in 
Latin America, the concluding remarks of the delegation were in 
keeping with the Mexican suggestion that above all the Alliance must 
be a cooperative venture in order to accomplish its goals. 



Third Meeting, Guanajuato, Mexico, March 15-24, 1963 

United States Delegates 

From the Senate: 

John Sparkman of Alabama, Chairman. 
Wayne Morse, of Oregon. 
Mike Mansfield, of Montana. 
Thomas J. Dodd, of Connecticut. 
Edmund S. Muskie, of Maine. 
Daniel B. Brewster, of Maryland. 
Thomas J. Mclntvre, of New Hampshire. 
Wallace F. Bennett, of Utah. 
Thomas H. Kuchel, of California. 
Jack Miller, of Iowa. 

E. L. Mechem, of New Mexico. 
From the House: 

Robert N. C. Nix, of Pennsylvania, Chairman. 

Joseph M. Montoya, of New Mexico. 

Harris B. McDowell, Jr., of Delaware. 

Torbert H. Macdonald, of Massachusetts. 

Jim Wright, of Texas. 

Harold T. Johnson, of California. 

Ronald Brooks Cameron, of California. 

Edward J. Derwinski, of Illinois. 

Walter Norblad, of Oregon. 

William L. Springer, of Illinois. 

F. Bradford Morse, of Massachusetts. 
Ben Reifel, of South Dakota. 

Mexican Delegates 
From the Senate: 

Abelardo de la Torre Grajales, of Chiapas, Chairman. 

Manuel Hinojosa Ortiz, of Michoacan. 

Julian A. Manzur Ocana, of Tabasco. 

Juan Manuel Teran Mata, of Tamaulipas. 

Fernando Lanz Duret, of Campeche. 

Jose Maria Tapia, of Baja California 

Elias Mendoza Gonzalez, of Jalisco. 

Edgardo Medina Alonzo, of Yucatan. 

Ramon Ruiz Vasconcelos, of Oaxaca. 

Mauricio Magdaleno Cardona, of Zacatecas. 

Rafael Moreno Valle, of Puebla. 

Maximiliano Ruiz Castafieda, of Mexico. 
Alternates: 

Abdon Alanis Ramirez, of Durango. 

Guillermo Ibarra, of Sonora. 
From the Chamber of Deputies: 

Romolo S&nchez Mireles, of the Federal District, Chairman. 

(15) 



16 

Gonzalo Aguirre Beltran, of Veracruz. 

Jesus Reyes Heroles, of Veracruz. 

Noe G. Elizondo, of Nuevo Leon. 

Gonzalo Bautista O'Farrill, of Puebla. 

Maria del Refugio Baez, of Sinaloa. 

Ricardo Carrillo Duran, of Chihuahua. 

Flavio Romero de Velasco, of Jalisco. 

Juan Perez Vela, of Guanajuato. 

Jose Lopez Bermudez. of Guanajuato. 

Antonio Navarro Encinas, of Baja California Sur. 

Jesus Gonzalez Gortazar, of Jalisco. 
Alternates: 

Joaquin Gamboa Pascoe, of the Federal District- 
Martin Diaz Montero, of Veracruz. 

Enrique Pacheco Alvarez, of Oaxacn. 
The U.S. delegation arrived in Mexico City March 15 and proceeded 
to Guanajuato on March 17. Sessions of the conference of the Mexico- 
United States Interparliamentary Group took place in Guanajuato 
on March 18-20. On March 21, the delegation returned to Mexico City 
where it was received the following day by President Adolfo Lopez 
Mateos. The delegation then flew to Merida and spent March 23 
visiting the Mayan ruins of Chichen-Itza, at the invitation of the 
Mexican hosts. On March 24, the delegation returned to Washing- 
ton, D.C. 

At the conclusion of the formal sessions, the conference as a whole 
issued a joint declaration in which it applauded the merits of the 
Interparliamentary Group meetings, endorsed the ideals and perspec- 
tives of the Alliance for Progress, supported continued cultural and 
scientific exchanges, and recommended further action within the 
United Nations to speed up agreements on world disarmament. 

The conference organized its work into the following four com- 
mittees: Appraisal of the Alliance for Progress; Perspectives of the 
Alliance; United States-Mexican Bilateral Problems; Disarmament, 
Peace, Collective Security, and International Relations. 

Committee I — Alliance j or Progress: Appraisal 

The Mexican delegation offered an appraisal of the Alliance for 
Progress by citing a number of areas of concern such as: tax reform, 
land reform, education policy, public health and social security, 
economic planning, financial and technical aid, trade, and economic 
integration of Latin America. 

Under tax reform, the Mexican delegation mentioned their tax 
reform of 1961 which sought to discourage luxury consumption by the 
wealthy in order to channel additional funds into important economic 
enterprises. Nevertheless, the individual tax burden remained low, 
thus shifting much of the responsibility for economic growth in the 
private sector. Although the Mexican delegation asserted that this 
policy had tended to facilitate capital formation, the U.S. delegation 
suggested that the administration and collection of tax revenues 
remained an area for improvement. However, the American delegation 
applauded the Mexican efforts, as many of the other countries partic- 
ipating in the Alliance for Progress lagged far behind Mexico in 
resolving this problem. 



17 

In respect to land reform, the Mexican delegation cited its progress 
in this area over the past 40 years. However, the U.S. delegation 
emphasized that this laudable policy must be accompanied by a 
serious appreciation for the important problems of increased produc- 
tion and seed and water availability. In the areas of education, public 
health and social security, the Mexican delegation reported significant 
progress. 

In the area of economic planning, the Mexican delegation explained 
that its Government sought to coordinate investment in which the 
private sector had no interest or provided insufficient participation. 
The delegation reiterated that Government-provided stimuli were 
intended to attract funds to be channeled into farming, manufacturing, 
housing, and transportation. The Mexican delegation, as in the 
previous meetings, restated its Government's policy of allowing 
foreign investments to play a complementary role in the economy. 
Nevertheless, the Mexicans conceded that additional foreign capital 
was needed in order to resume the level of economic growth which the 
country had enjoyed until 1956. The U.S. delegation was pleased to 
note that Mexico's high credit rating is one of its most solid assets 
and that its external and internal debts remained within manageable 
bounds. 

Next, the Mexican delegation discussed the economic problems 
posed by the fluctuations of commodity prices. For Mexico, this was 
a crucial problem since these exports are necessary to pay for capital 
goods (usually U.S. manufactured). The delegation cited the United 
States use of trade policies to decrease demand for Mexican exports 
as detrimental to both economies. 

Finally, the Mexican delegation noted that it was a signatory to the 
Montevideo Treaty and was seeking to facilitate further discussions 
among the members of the Latin American Free Trade Association 
regarding economic integration in Latin America. 

The U.S. delegation proposed that the Mexican delegation give 
consideration to using the "guarantee method" to accelerate the 
housing program. In this method, U.S. banks, insurance companies, 
and loan associations would make capital available for construction. 
Since this money would be offered to the central Mexican agency 
(which would then make the loans to individuals), foreign capital 
would be under Governmental supervision. 

Committee II — Alliance for Progress: Perspectives 

The Mexican delegation addressed itself to the problems and opposi- 
tion the Alliance still faced in achieving its goals. The U.S. delegation 
responded that additional incentives would be offered to U.S. investors 
to encourage participation. The U.S. delegates explained that the 
Alliance was proposed with a minimum ten year horizon which was 
necessary to accommodate the needs of each Alliance country. Finally, 
the U.S. delegation noted that in regard to taxes, agrarian reform, 
and incentives to private investment that Mexico enjoyed a leading 
position among the Latin American countries. 

Committee III — Specific Mexican-North American Problems 

The Committee focused on the specific is>ue^ of tourism, migratory 
workers, cultural exchange, and the salinity of the Colorado River. 
The Mexican delegation again pointed out the deleterious effects of 
the U.S. $100 exemption for tourists bringing in items from Mexico 



18 

and other foreign countries. However, given the U.S. delegation 
statement that this reduced exemption was intended to help rebalance 
U.S. trade, the Mexican delegation suggested other possible U.S. 
actions to mitigate the problem. First, that Europeans coming from 
Mexico via the U.S, be exempted from the $100 U.S. customs limi- 
tation. Second, the Mexican delegation suggested that a mutually 
satisfactory tourist agreement be worked out. 

In reference to migratory workers, the Mexican delegation pointed 
out that two major problems remain: first, the low wages and meager 
benefits afforded to the illegal farmworker in the United States; 
second, issuance of work visas to migratory workers whose employ- 
ment is temporary and who then overcrowd the border towns in the 
off seasons. 

The problem of the salinity of the Colorado River was discussed. 
As in previous meetings, the Mexican delegation pointed out the 
damage created by this situation. The U.S. delegation reported that 
it would recommend further serious study on the matter to Congress. 

Both delegations reaffirmed their belief in and support for cultural 
exchanges. However, the Mexican delegation explained that the 
expense of these student exchanges posed a hardship for their govern- 
ment. They suggested that the United States consider the loan of 
technically skilled persons to Mexico as an alternative type of exchange 
which would offer greater benefits to Mexico's development. As 
another aspect of cultural exchange, the U.S. delegation added that 
it would recommend continued efforts to make available books of a 
technical variety and other publications to Mexican students at 
reasonable prices. 

Committee IV — Peace, Disarmament, Collective Security, and Inter- 
national Relations 
The delegations issued a joint statement indicating the friendship 
of Mexico and the United States and expressing their support for 
the United Nations actions aimed toward a world ban on nuclear 
testing and arms control. Moreover they expressed their belief in the 
potential of the OAS to contribute to the security of the Americas — 
especially when this security is derived from the increased well-being 
of all member countries. Within the framework of the OAS and the 
United Nations, the two delegations expressed their belief that world 
peace and security could be safeguarded through the judicial settle- 
ment of world disputes and that the rule of law would replace that of 
force. 



Fourth Meeting, Washington, D.C., March 5-12, 1964 

United States Delegates . 

From the Senate : 

John Sparkman, of Alabama, Cochairman. 

Wayne Morse, of Oregon. 

Mike Mansfield, of Montana. 

Thomas J. Dodd, of Connecticut. 

Allen J. Ellender, of Louisiana. 

Olin D. Johnston, of South Carolina. 

Albert Gore, of Tennessee. 

Ernest Gruening, of Alaska. 

Thomas H. Kuchel, of California. 

John G. Tower, of Texas. 

E. L. Mechem, of New Mexico. 
Mil ward L. Simpson, of Wyoming. 

From the House of Representatives: 

Robert N. C. Nix, of Pennsylvania, Cochairman. 

Joseph M. Montoya, of New Mexico. 

Harris B. McDowell, Jr., of Delaware. 

Torbert H. Macdonald, of Massachusetts. 

Jim Wright, of Texas. 

Harold T. Johnson, of California. 

Ronald Brooks Cameron, of California. 

Edward J. Derwinski, of Illinois. 

Walter Norblad, of Oregon. 

William L. Springer, of Illinois. 

Ben Reifel, of South Dakota. 

F. Bradford Morse, of Massachusetts. 

Mexican Delegates 
From the Senate : 

Manuel Moreno Sanchez, of Aguascalientes, Cochairman. 

Eliseo Aragon Robelledo, of Morelos. 

Rafael Carranza Hernandez, of Coahuila. 

Guillermo Ibarra, of Sonora. 

Edgardo Medina Alonzo, of Yucatan. 

Elias Mendoza Gonzalez, of Jalisco. 

Carlos Roman Celis, of Guerrero. 

Maximiliano Ruiz Castafieda, of Mexico. 

Angel Santos Cervantes, of Neuvo Leon. 

Juan Manuel Teran Mata, of Tamaulipas. 

Tomas Valles Vivar, of Chihuahua. 

Gustavo Vildosola Almada, of Baja California. 
From the Chamber of Deputies: 

Jose Lopez Bermiidez, of Guanajuato, Cochairman. 

Jorge Abaria Calderon, of the Federal District. 

(19) 



20 

Martin Diaz Montero, of Veracruz. 

Joaquin Gamboa Pascoe, of the Federal District. 

Jesus Gonzalez Gortozar, of Jalisco. 

Manuel Marquez Escobedo, of Guanajuato. 

Rodrigo Moreno Zermefio, of Guanajuato. 

Enrique Pacheco Alvarez, of Oaxaca. 

Romeo Rincon Serrano, of Chiapas. 

Guadalupe Rivera Marin, of the Federal District. 

Diodoro Rivera Uribe, of Morelos. 

Jenaro Vazquez Cblemenares, of Oaxaca. 
The fourth meeting of the Mexico-United States Interparliamentary 
Group was opened formally on March 5 with welcoming remarks by 
Senator Sparkman, Secretary of State Dean Rusk, and Mexican 
Senator Manuel Moreno Sanchez. Speaker of the House of Repre- 
sentatives, John W. McCormack addressed the delegations at a 
luncheon given by Representative Nix the same day. 

In addition to the formal meetings, the Mexican delegation visited 
Arlington National Cemetery and was received by President Johnson 
in the White House on March 6. From Washington the delegation 
proceeded to Knoxville, Tennessee, on March 8, and visited a number 
of Tennessee Valley Authority projects along with a reactor at Oak 
Ridge. On March 10, the group flew to New Orleans, Louisiana, where 
it visited the Michoud Saturn Plant. The delegation departed for 
Mexico City on March 12. 

The work of the conference was organized into three committees 
which met on March 5 and 6: Political matters (East- West relations 
and inter- American problems) ; Economic matters (the Alliance for 
Progress and trade relations); Bilateral matters (cultural exchanges, 
migratory workers, and border problems). 

Committee 1 — Political 

Among the political issues discussed by the delegation were Cuban 
aggression against Venezuela, the Panama Canal, and East- West 
conflict as evidenced by the cold war and increasing hostilities in 
Vietnam. The U.S. delegation pointed out that Cuban aggression 
against Venezuela was not in keeping with the U.S. and Mexican 
policies of non-intervention. The U.S. delegation reminded the 
Mexicans that since Mexico had recognized the Act of Punta del Este, 
both countries had a mutual obligation to help contain the spread of 
communism within the hemisphere. The Mexican representatives 
responded by stating that at Punte del Este in 1962, Mexico accepted 
the majority's vote. Second, they noted that since they were unac- 
quainted with the OAS report on the Venezuelan situation, they were 
unable to give a concrete opinion. Third, they stated that even if such 
aggression were recognized, the case would have to be submitted to 
the United Nations for judgment. 

In reference to the Panama Canal, the U.S. delegation assured the 
Mexicans that the United States would be glad to discuss the matter 
at any time. However, they pointed out that the United States would 
not respond to threats and pressures, nor would it make promises in 
advance, regarding a new treaty. Finally, it was explained that any 
new treaty, according to the U.S. Constitution, must be subject to 
Senate approval. 



21 

Regarding East-West tensions, the Mexican delegation offered the 
observation that the situation could best be characterized as struggles 
between the developed and underdeveloped countries, or between the 
rich and the poor. The delegation noted that this struggle is mirrored 
in Mexico-U.S. relations as well and can only be concluded when the 
power and privilege of one country is not acquired by the permanent 
poverty of another. The United States in turn emphasized that the 
loss of freedom in one constituted a threat against all free people. 
Nevertheless, the Mexican delegation pointed out that the problem 
of salinity in the Colorado River was considerably more important to 
Mexican public opinion than the outcome in Vietnam. 

Committee II — Economic 

The discussion on economic issues concerned United States-Mexican 
trade and the Alliance for Progress. The trade discussions covered the 
following commodities: cotton, coffee, beef, minerals (principally lead 
and zinc) copra, henequen, sugar, fruits, and vegetables. 

Cotton, as mentioned in previous years, is Mexico's principal export 
crop. The Mexican delegation also pointed out that the country 
imports many U.S. goods, such as farm machinery, fertilizers, seeds, 
and transport vehicles, for cotton production. Thus, the Mexican dele- 
gation was pleased to learn that bills were pending in the U.S. Congress 
which would increase the price of cotton and thus help stabilize the 
world market for this commodity. The Mexican delegation also argued 
for a more equitable treatment by the U.S. in light of its recent agree- 
ment with Japan on the import of cotton textiles. 

In reference to coffee, the Mexican delegation emphasized that the 
United States would suffer a blow to its prestige if the U.S. Congress 
failed to approve the world coffee agreement. 

In studying the issue of meat exports from Mexico, the U.S. delega- 
tion pointed out that Mexican beef constituted a small part of the total 
U.S. meat imports. Nevertheless, the Mexican delegation pointed out 
that imposing a smaller quota would be prejudicial to the Mexican 
economy since 99% of their meat exports are for U.S. markets. 

With regard to the production of lead and zinc, the U.S. delegation 
stated that it foresaw no serious deterioration in lead and zinc imports. 
The Mexican delegation protested that proposed duty increases on 
these metals would harm the Mexican economy. The Mexican senators 
and deputies emphatically pointed out the need for a new U.S. policy 
which would establish a formula for the fair and preferential treatment 
of Mexican lead and zinc. 

As discussed in previous meetings the Mexican delegation requested 
a return to the tourist duty free allowance of $500 to benefit Mexican 
artisans. 

The Mexican delegation, for the first time, introduced the question 
of copra or coconut oil exports. The Mexicans pointed out that when 
this oil is imported from the Phillipines no duty is paid, while Mexico 
is charged a duty. Since the commodit}^ does not compete with U.S. 
products, the Mexican delegation asked that this tariff be rescinded. 
The increased use of synthetics for use in twine and rope was discussed 
as it threatened the henequen industry in southeast Mexico. 

In reference to the export of Mexican fruits and vegetables to the 
U.S., the Mexican delegation pointed out that half of the market 
value received is returned to the United States in the purchase of farm 



22 

machinery, taxes, and fertilizer. For this reason, the Mexican delega- 
tion suggested that one of the major aims of the Alliance for Progress 
should be to simplify transit through customs, and improve sanitation 
and fumigation procedures, to avoid unnecessary charges and damage 
to products which quickly decompose. 

The U.S. delegation regretted that there could not have been more 
discussion regarding the Alliance for Progress. Nevertheless, the 
Mexican delegation offered a number of observations on its problems 
and prospects for the future. The Mexicans pointed out that a portion 
of the Alliance funds, especially those from international agencies, 
would have been available to Mexico through customary credit 
channels. In addition, they cited the internal bureaucratic handling 
of fund assignment in the United States as an obstacle. A final problem 
was the requirement by the Export-Import Bank that industrial 
equipment be U.S. produced, a regulation which the Mexicans 
regarded as inimical with acquiring capital goods at the lowest 
possible prices. 

Committee III — Bilateral Relations 

Both delegations expressed satisfaction, with the settlement of the 
Chamizal dispute in January. In addition, the increase in the number 
of exchange students between the countries, the opening of various 
reading rooms in Mexico, and U.S. donations to the Agricultural 
School of Chapingo and the Technological Institute of Monterrey, 
and the increase in translation and distribution of books by the 
USIS, were hailed as great achievements in the area of cultural 
relations. 

The U.S. delegation announced that substantial improvement had 
been effected in the quality of waters released to Mexico from the 
Colorado River as a result of the construction of 25 additional drain- 
age wells and the near completion of an 8,000 tiled drainage system. 
The U.S. delegation asked that the Mexican Government reciprocate 
by undertaking projects to reduce the salinity of the lower Rio 
Grande River which adversely affected the irrigation of the lower 
Rio Grande Valley of Texas. 

In reference to other border matters, both delegations were pleased 
to note that visas were now available free of charge to all tourists 
crossing from one country to the other. However in reference to the 
problem of migratory workers, the Mexican delegation insisted on the 
need for a legal instrument which would effectively replace the bilateral 
bracero program. This must be done, the delegation continued, not 
only to protect North American workers from unfair competition but 
also to protect the migrants themselves by providing them legal rights 
and setting out guidelines relating to their pay and living conditions. 



Fifth Meeting, La Paz, Mexico ; February 11-17, 1965 

United States Delegates 
From the Senate: 

John Sparkman, of Alabama, Chairman. 

Wayne Morse, of Oregon. 

Mike Mansfield, of Montana. 

Albert Gore, of Tennessee. 

Ernest Gruening, of Alaska. 

Joseph M. Montoya, of New Mexico. 

Joseph D. Tydings, of Maryland 

George D. Aiken, of Vermont. 

Wallace F. Bennett, of Utah. 

Milward L. Simpson, of W}'oming. 

Paul J. Fannin, of Arizona. 
From the House of Representatives: 

Robert N. C. Nix, of Pennsylvania, Chairman. 

Harris B. McDowell, Jr., of Delaware. 

James C. Wright, Jr., of Texas. 

Ronald Brooks Cameron, of California. 

Henry B. Gonzalez, of Texas. 

Edward J. Derwinski, of Illinois. 

William L. Springer, of Illinois. 

F. Bradford Morse, of Massachusetts. 

James Harvey, of Michigan. 

Alphonzo Bell, of California. 

Mexican Delegates 
From the Senate: 

Manuel Tello, of Zacatecas. 

Alfonso Guerra, of Nayarit. 

Alfredo Ruiseco Avellaneda, of Colima. 

Armando Arteaga Santoyo, of Nuevo Leon. 

Florencio Barrera Fuentes, of Coahuila. 

Gonzalo Bautista O'Farrill, of Puebla. 

Carlos Loret de Mola, of Yucatan. 

Cristobal Guzman Cardenas, of Durango. 

Gustavo A. Rovirosa, of Tabasco. 

Carlos Sansores Perez, of Campeche. 

Juan Jose Gonzalez Bustamante, of San Luis Potosi. 

Mario Olivera Gomez Tagle, of Mexico. 

Eulalio Gutierrez Trevino, of Coahuila. 

Manuel Soberanes Munoz, of Queretaro. 
From the Chamber of Deputies: 

Alfonso Martinez Dominguez, of Nuevo Leon. 

Antonio Martinez Manautou, of Distrito Federal. 

Alejandro Carrillo, of Distrito Federal. 

Luis Danton Rodriguez, of Guanajuato. 

Jorge de la Vega Dominguez, of Chiapas. 

(23) 



24 

Manuel Gurria Ordonez, of Tabasco. 

Ruben Moheno Velasco, of Jalisco. 

Francisco Perez Rios, of Mexico. 

Miguel Covian Perez, of Distrito Federal. 

Raul Legaspi Donis, of Mexico. 

Jose Antonio Cobos Panama, of Veracruz. 

Miguel Osorio Marban, of Guerrero. 
The fifth meeting of the Mexico-United State Interparliamentary 
Group was formally convened on February 15 in La Paz at the "Casa 
de la Juventud" (House of Youth) with welcoming remarks by General 
Bonifacio Salinas Leal, the Governor of the Territory of Baja Cali- 
fornia Sur, Deputy Alfonso Martinez Dominguez, and Senator Spark- 
man. The following committees were designated by the Group : Eco- 
nomic, Political, and Social. 

Prior to the opening of the formal session, the U.S. delegation, which 
arrived in Chihuahua, Mexico on February 11, traveled with the Mexi- 
can delegation to Los Mochis, Sinaloa, via the Chihuahua-Pacific 
Railroad. On February 13, the group flew to Mazatlan and departed 
for La Paz, by ferryboat, arriving the next day. At the conclusion of 
the formal sessions, which took place on February 15 and 16, the 
delegations proceeded to Mexico City where they were received by 
President Gustavo Diaz Ordaz. The U.S. delegation returned to 
Washington on February 18. 

At the conclusion of the meetings, the conference as a whole issued a 
joint declaration in which it reaffirmed its belief in democratic princi- 
ples, repudiated all forms of aggression against or intervention in the 
affairs of one state by another, and agreed that the strengthening of 
the United Nations and the Organization of American States would 
provide for better means of solving international disputes. It also 
supported measures to prevent the proliferation of nuclear weapons in 
Latin America, noted the importance of solving the salinity problem of 
the Colorado River, urged the acceleration of Alliance for Progress 
programs, supported cultural and technical exchanges as a means of 
stimulating development, agreed that tourism brought economic and 
social returns to both the United States and Mexcio and recognized the 
need for appropriate legislation to govern the movements and guaran- 
tee the rights of Mexican migratory workers. 

Committee I — Economic 

The Economic Committee discussed topics such as: trade, foreign 
investment, economic development, international credit, and the 
Alliance for Progress. 

Specific quotas for sugar were proposed by the Mexican delegation 
although the U.S. delegation indicated that it would recommend an 
increase in the U.S. quota vis-a-vis Mexican sugar. The delegations 
also discussed U.S. imports of lead and zinc. The Mexican delegation 
was of the opinion that an increase in the U.S. quota for these imports 
would be desirable although the U.S. pointed out that both metals now 
enjoyed price stability. The U.S. delegation described the outlook for 
the sale of henequen with pessimism because of competition from 
synthetics — a prediction viewed with alarm by the Mexican delegation 
because of the number of Mexicans involved in the cultivation of this 
crop. The Mexican delegation also expressed hope that U.S. import 
quotas for beef and shrimp might be increased. 



25 

The U.S. representatives expressed pleasure with increasing indus- 
trial activity in Mexico. Nevertheless, they cited the inefficiencies of 
the local assembly of automobiles and tractors which cost more to 
produce in Mexico. They also mentioned that the high tariffs placed on 
the import of U.S. vehicles contributed to unemployment in the 
United States. Moreover other Mexican export taxes on minerals not 
only inhibit the growth of Mexican exports but also in some cases — 
such as amorphous graphite — seriously reduced supplies needed by 
U.S. industry. 

Both countries expressed satisfaction with the Alliance for Progress, 
although the Mexican members pointed to some discrepancies between 
the data of the two countries in the administration of funds. The 
Mexican delegation pointed out that although the country enjoys the 
confidence of international credit institutions, it should be explained 
to these agencies that Mexico still required so-called soft credit to en- 
courage the undertaking of development programs. Finally the dele- 
gation recommended that in order to utilize these needed foreign 
funds, the administrative procedures in the United States should be 
simplified. 

Committee II — Political 

The topics discussed b} r the political committee included the salinity 
of the Colorado River, a world-wide program of arms control, and the 
role of the OAS in maintaining hemispheric solidarity. 

The Mexican delegation, as in previous Interparliamentary meet- 
ings, explained the seriousness of the increasing salinity of the Colorado 
River and described the steps taken to date to solve the problem as 
temporary solutions at best. The U.S. delegates acknowledged the 
Mexican concern and expressed hope that the program for immediate 
relief, worked out between the Presidents of the two countries, would 
soon be approved by the Governors of the states involved and the 
necessary appropriations would be made by the U.S. Congress. The 
U.S. delegates also noted that the final total solution would require 
programs to supply additional water to the Colorado River Basin from 
other U.S. river systems, and perhaps even from Canada, as well as the 
development of large-scale, nuclear-powered desalinization projects. 
It was recommended by the U.S. delegation that both countries engage 
in joint research in the field of desalinization. The pilot project 
underway sponsored by the University of Sonora and the University of 
Arizona was cited as an example for future undertakings. 

In considering issues of international scope, the committee discussed 
disarmament, colonialism, intervention, the United Nations and the 
Organization of American States. The U.S. delegation cited the work of 
the Arms Control and Disarmament Agency as an indication of United 
States concern on the subject. Similarly, the Mexican delegation re- 
ferred to the subjects of "Nonnuclearization of Latin America and 
Denuclearization, " noting the repeated, intensive efforts of Mexico 
in -various international forums to ban the manufacture, stockpiling, 
dissemination, and use of nuclear weapons. 

With reference to colonialism, the U.S. delegates pointed out that 
except for Portugal, colonialism by the Western Powers had been elim- 
inated although it had been continuing and increasing on the part of 
the Soviet Union with respect to much of Eastern Europe. The U.S. 



26 

delegation also noted that in Puerto Rico, it remained the decision of 
its citizens to decide its status: independence, statehood, or continua- 
tion of its present commonwealth system. 

The Mexican delegation described its government as playing the role 
of a moderator in various international disputes — a role consistent 
with the traditional Mexican policy of non-intervention. The delega- 
tion continued by supporting the fundamental structure of the OAS 
and emphasizing the importance of respect by all members for the 
sovereignty of other states. 

Committee III — Social 

Under social issues, the delegates discussed cultural and technologi- 
cal exchanges, migratory workers, border problems, and tourism. 

Both delegations agreed that student exchanges were to be en- 
couraged — a point made in previous meetings. The U.S. delegation 
recommended that students be sent abroad in "cultural clusters," 
that is in small groups, so as to minimize their feelings of disorientation 
and to maximize their learning experience. The U.S. delegates also 
applauded the plans to establish the University of the Americas in 
Mexico City. They believed the University would contribute to 
greater mutual understanding. 

The two delegations also agreed on the importance of technological 
exchanges of information, especially as it contributes to solving prob- 
lems in the areas of health care and the study of demographic growth. 

With the termination of the bracero program, the U.S. delegation 
addressed the problem by citing the two major considerations: First, 
realistic guarantees that wage rates should not be depressive or dis- 
ruptive of prevailing rates and should not affect job opportunities 
among U.S. workers; and second, that there should be enforceable pro- 
tections against discrimination, mistreatment, or unjust exploitation 
of Mexican workers. 



Sixth Meeting, Washington, D.C., February 9-12, 1966 

United States Delegates 

From the Senate: 

John J. Sparkman, of Alabama, Chairman. 

Wayne Morse, of Oregon. 

Mike Mansfield, of Montana. 

Albert Gore, of Tennessee. 

Ernest Gruening, of Alaska. 

Daniel K. Inouye, of Hawaii. 

Gaylord Nelson, of Wisconsin. 

Joseph M. Montoya, of New Mexico. 

George D. Aiken, of Vermont. 

Thomas H. Kuchel, of California. 

Paul J. Fannin, of Arizona. 

George Murphy, of California. 
From the House of Representatives: 

Robert N. C. Nix, of Pennsylvania, Chairman. 

Harris B. McDowell, Jr., of Delaware. 

James C. Wright, Jr., of Texas. 

Harold T. Johnson, of California. 

Ronald Brooks Cameron, of California. 

Henry B. Gonzalez, of Texas. 

Eligio de la Garza, of Texas. 

Edward J. Derwinski, of Illinois. 

F. Bradford Morse, of Massachusetts. 

James Harvey, of Michigan. 

Alphonzo Bell, of California. 

Chester L. Mize, of Kansas. 

Mexican Delegates 
From the Senate: 

Manuel M. Moreno, of Guanajuato, Chairman. 

Manuel Tello, of Zacatecas, secretary. 

Maria Lavalle Urbina, of Campeche. 

Arturo Llorente Gonzalez, of Veracruz. 

Manuel Bernardo Aguirre, of Chihuahua. 

Mario C. Olivera, of the State of Mexico. 

Arturo Moguel Esponda, of Chiapas. 

Filiberto Rubalcaba, of Jalisco. 

Amado Estrada Rodriguez, of Sinaloa. 

Eulalio Gutierrez Treviflo, of Coahuila. 

Ignacio Bonilla Vazquez, of Tlaxcala. 

Juan de Dios Bojorquez, of Sonora. 

Oswaldo Cravioto Cisneros, of Hidalgo (Alternate). 

Antonio Flores Mazari, of Morelos (Alternate). 

(27) 



76-432 O - 76 - 3 



28 

From the Chamber of Deputies : 

Jorge de la Vega, of Chiapas, Coordinator. 

Mauro Berrueto Ramon, of Coahuila. 

Jose Antonio Cobos, of Veracruz. 

Luis Danton Rodriguez, of Guanajuato. 

Alejandor Carrillo, of the Federal District. 

Raul Legaspi, of the State of Mexico. 

Abraham Aguilar, of Chiapas. 

Vicente Fuentes Diaz, of Guerrero. 

Antonio Martinez Manautou, of the Federal District. 

Aurora Navia Millan, of Zacatecas. 

Martha Andrade del Rosal, of the Federal District. 

Ruben Moheno Velasco, of Jalisco. 

Humberto Morales, of Sinaloa (Alternate). 

Arnulfo Trevino Garza, of Coahuila (Alternate). 
The Mexican delegation arrived in Washington on February 9. On 
the following day, the conference formally convened with opening 
remarks by Representative Robert Nix, Secretary Dean Rusk, and 
Mexican Senator Manuel Moreno. The formal discussions were 
divided into two committees: Political and Economic and Social 
Affairs. In addition to the committee sessions, the Mexican delegation 
was received by President Johnson on February 11. The next day, 
both delegations participated in ceremonies at the Lincoln Memorial 
and at the late President Kennedy's gravesite. The delegations 
proceeded to Philadelphia on February 13 for a commemorative 
session at Congress Hall in Independence Park. The Mexican dele- 
gation received an inscribed replica of the Liberty Bell from the city 
of Philadelphia. On May 14 and 15, the two delegations visited San 
Francisco where Mayor Shelley proclaimed Congress of Mexico Day 
and the delegates attended a dinner sponsored by the Chamber of 
Commerce. 

At the conclusion of the meeting, a joint statement was made by the 
chiefs of both delegations. They reaffirmed their belief in the demo- 
cratic form of government, opposition to armed aggression and inter- 
vention in the internal affairs of other states, faith in the United 
Nations and the Organization of American States as a means to 
problem solving between countries, belief in the desirability of a 
nuclear-free zone in Latin America, commitment to accelerate the 
advancement of the Alliance for Progress, belief in the values of 
cultural interchange and tourism as a means of increasing mutual 
understanding and promoting economic development, and agreement 
on the usefulness of this and previous Interparliamentary Conferences. 

Committee I — Political Affairs 

Talks centered around the following three subjects: reorganization 
of the OAS, denuclearization of Latin America, and Central America 
and the Caribbean. 

Concerning the OAS, the Mexican delegation maintained that 
while the structure of the organization should be revised, such princi- 
ples as nonintervention, the juridical equality of states, and the 
prohibition of force should remain intact as underlying principles. 
The Mexican participants expressed a desire to broaden the juris- 
diction of the OAS in such fields as human rights and social develop- 
ment. The Mexican delegation suggested that the Inter-American 



29 

Juridical Commission produce a definition for the concept of collective 
action to avoid confusing it with the concept of nonintervention. 
The U.S. delegation agreed that problems existed because of the 
various interpretations given to the term "intervention," citing 
differences over Cuba and the OAS action in the Dominican Republic 
in 1965, as examples. 

On denuclearization of Latin America, the U.S. delegation com- 
mended its Mexican counterpart for its initiatives, but raised questions 
about methods of policing multilateral agreements and about the 
ramifications it might have on later decisions such as using nuclear 
power to excavate a second canal opening. Both American and Mexican 
participants agreed that these factors should not be a hindrance 
since it was concluded that no ban should be made on the peaceful 
use of atomic energy. 

Regarding Central America and the Caribbean, the U.S. delegation 
noted increased Mexican trade activity in the area. The delegation 
also acknowledged that while American-operated firms in Central 
America might experience immediate problems, because of Mexico's 
participation, the greater trade and keener competition benefiting 
all parties would make the initiative worthwhile. Likewise, the 
Mexican assembly supported freer trade among neighboring republics 
in Central and South America expounding a position characterized 
by the absence of all territorial claims, a desire for economic integra- 
tion, and a strengthening of the bonds of friendship and close inter- 
national cooperation. 

Committee II — Economic and Social Affairs 

The major topics considered under this heading included trade and 
commodity matters, cultural and technical exchanges, border problems 
and the Alliance for Progress. 

In view of the unbalanced terms of trade that existed as a result of 
Mexico's purchasing a greater dollar volume of U.S. goods than the 
United States purchases from Mexico, the U.S. delegation stated that 
its favorable position was offset by its umbrella of protection to the 
free world, its economic assistance programs and the volume of Ameri- 
can tourist trade to Mexico. To help alleviate its balance of payments 
deficit to the United States, the Mexican delegation proposed accords 
which would serve to stabilize the prices of raw materials, and requested 
U.S. companies in Mexico to reinvest their earnings to accelerate the 
rate of capital growth and development. 

On individual commodities, it was determined by both sides that 
there was a need to insure stable prices and increased competition in 
the production of cotton, beef and sugar. The Mexican representatives 
also called for a revision of the tariff statutes on fluospar and barite. 
Finally, the Mexican participants urged the U.S. legislators to take 
measures to enhance the tourist trade by establishing preferential air 
fares, promoting advertising campaigns, and increasing purchase allot- 
ments on liquor and other gifts. 

Both the United States and Mexican assemblies stressed the need to 
emphasize social and cultural exchanges as a means to recognize each 
other's heritage and to strengthen the ties of friendship and under- 
standing. In light of this mutual feeling, both groups agreed that a 
continued dialogue could be facilitated through planned action and 
the creation of a specific agency or committee to encourage and enact 
such exchanges. 



30 

As far as border problems were cone era ed, the Mexican delegation 
admitted that illegal migratory flows could be expected to persist as 
long as there continued to be a need for labor and manpower within 
the United States. The termination of the Bracero Agreement in 1964 
exacerbated the situation. In response to this issue, the Mexican 
representatives proposed the establishment of a bilateral commission 
to study the problem. 

Concerning the Alliance for Progress, the Mexican members articu- 
lated a desire for an accelerated rate of public investment and an 
increase in foreign credit at low interest and long term rates. Although 
the U.S. delegation also voiced aspirations to see the Alliance succeed, 
it maintained that Mexico must begin to generate capital investment 
and expansion internally. Hence, the U.S. participants suggested an 
emphasis on long term loans, sharing management of U.S. -operated 
firms in Mexico, greater public investment, investment incentives and 
reinvestment programs. 



Seventh Meeting, Oaxaca, Mexico, February 9-14, 1967 

United States Delegates 
From the Senate: 

John Sparkman, of Alabama, Chairman. 
J. W. Fulbright, of Arkansas. 
Wayne Morse, of Oregon. 
Mike Mansfield, of Montana. 
Frank Church, of Idaho. 
Frank E. Moss, of Utah. 
Joseph M. Montoya, of New Mexico. 
Ernest F. Hollings, of South Carolina. 
Ernest Gruening, of Alaska. 
George D. Aiken, of Vermont. 
Margaret Chase Smith, of Maine. 
Len B. Jordan, of Idaho. 
Paul J. Fannin, of Arizona. 
Clifford P. Hansen, of Wyoming. 
From the House of Representatives : 

Robert N. C. Nix, of Pennsylvania, Chairman. 

James C. Wright, Jr., of Texas. 

Harold T. Johnson, of California. 

Henry B. Gonzalez, of Texas. 

Eligio de la Garza, of Texas. 

Armistead I. Selden, Jr., of Alabama. 

Donald M. Fraser, of Minnesota. 

William L. Springer, of Illinois. 

F. Bradford Morse, of Massachusetts. 

Ben Reifel, of South Dakota. 

James Harvey, of Michigan. 

J. Irving Whalley, of Pennsylvania. 

Mexican Delegates 
From the Senate: 

Andres Serra Rojas. 

Juan de Dios Bojorquez. 

Maria Lavalle Urbina. 

Luis L. Leon Uranga. 

Baltasar R. Leyva Mancilla. 

Mario C. Olivera. 

Diodoro Rivera Uribe. 

Rodolfo Sandoval Lopez. 
From the Chamber of Deputies: 

Hilda Anderson Nevares. 

Martha Andrade de Del Rosal. 

Jose" Antonio Cobos Panama. 

Miguel Covian P6rez. 

Luis Danton Rodriguez. 

Jorge de la Vega Dommguez. 

(31) 



32 

Vicente Fuentes Diaz. 

Tulio Hernandez Gomez. 

Raul Legaspi Donis. 

Antonio Martinez Manautou. 

Ruben Moheno Velasco. 

Enrique Ramirez y Ramirez. 

Mario Vargas Saldafia. 
The U.S. delegation arrived in Acapulco, Mexico on February 8 
and then proceeded to Oaxaca where the formal sessions of the Con- 
ference were held on February 9 and 10. The work of the meeting was 
broken down into two committees: Political and Economic. After the 
formal sessions, both delegations traveled to Mexico City where they 
were received by President Gustavo Diaz Ordaz on February 1 1 . The 
two delegations then spent the weekend at the Mexican Social Security 
Institute's Vocational Center in Oaxtepec. On February 13, both dele- 
gations returned to Mexico City and the U.S. delegations departed for 
Washington on February 15. 

At the conclusion of the conference, the heads of delegations issued a 
joint statement reaffirming their belief in the value of the Interparlia- 
mentary meetings, adherence to democratic principles, aith in thes 
value of the Organization of American States and the Unfited Nation 
to improve international cooperation and understanding, support of 
an agreement to ban nuclear weapons in Latin America, belief in the 
importance of trade and cultural interchange to improve United 
States-Mexico relations, commitment to solving the problem of water 
scarcity, and the usefulness of personal meetings between the Presi- 
dents of their respective countries as a tool in the settlement of bilateral 
problems. 

Committee I — Political 

Committee I discussed a variety of political matters: desaliniza- 
tion, the denuclearization of Latin America, summit, presidential and 
interparliamentary meetings, OAS charter revision, and structural 
improvements in Latin American societies. 

Of great interest to both delegations was what Senator Mansfield 
referred to as the ' 'world-wide water problem," in particular, the co- 
operative achievements of the two countries in desalinization projects. 
The Mexican delegation noted that Presidents Johnson and Diaz 
Ordaz had signed an agreement for the construction of a desalinization 
plant and that Mexico had begun new construction of such a plant. 
Both delegations urged the importance of continuing such efforts. 

Creation and maintenance of a nuclear-free zone in Latin America 
was unanimously favored. The Mexican delegation referred to approval 
in the U.N. General Assembly of a l 'denuclearization' ' resolution and 
noted that the previous Mexico-United States Interparliamentary 
Group was on record in favor of carrying out programs to establish a 
nuclear-free zone to further the maintenance of peace. Senator Ful- 
bright felt that it was time to go beyond denuclearization to the issue 
of the control of conventional weapons. 

Proposals to revise the OAS charter with a view towards structural 
and functional reform were discussed. Senator Mansfield noted that 
the Senate Foreign Relations Committee had reviewed the matter and 
the Mexican delegation emphasized the importance of adhering to 



33 

basic OAS principles of non-intervention, self-determination, the 
juridical equality of states and the peaceful settlement of disputes. 

Both delegations commented on the desire for social progress and 
economic development and some members of the U.S. delegation 
suggested the importance of the evolution of political institutions. A 
United States delegate suggested that a timetable be set for the full 
realization of a Latin American Common Market. Closely related 
to these discussions was a strong emphasis on the importance of 
summit meetings, interparliamentary meetings, and in particular, the 
utility and desirability of meetings between the Chief Executives 
of Mexico and the United States. 

Committee II — Economic 

The discussion in Committee II was dominated by the trade and 
payments problems of both countries. The United States legislators 
hoped that both countries could ease their import restrictions and 
suggested the utility of voluntary restraints. It was suggested that 
Mexico join the GATT to facilitate trade discussions and that it 
could attract more U.S. investment through reduced requirements 
in its "Mexicanization" policy. Some U.S. representatives noted 
that the United States might ease its restrictions on imports by 
tourists, a factor which was hurting the Mexican economy. The costs 
of the Vietnam war were noted by U.S. legislators as a restraining 
factor with respect to any liberalization of U.S. international economic 
policies. 

A number of Mexican representatives felt that more liberal U.S. 
trade policies with respect to Mexico would have little effect on the 
U.S. economy and could have an important positive effect on the 
Mexican economy. It was noted that U.S. balance-of-payments 
difficulties had resulted in reduced bilateral aid and private investment 
in Mexico. The Mexican delegates felt that U.S. trade restrictions on 
cotton, tobacco, minerals, fruits and vegetables could be reduced and 
that an increase in Mexican exports to the U.S. would, in turn, result 
in more purchases of U.S. capital goods by Mexico. The Mexican 
delegation asserted that its trade policies were oriented to seeking 
a higher standard of living and suggested that Mexico, like other 
less-developed-countries, should obtain trade preferences from the 
United States. 

Committee III — Social 

Committee III discussed the Olympic Games of 1968, tourism, 
educational and cultural exchange programs and economic develop- 
ment matters. 

Both delegations spoke in glowing terms of the Olympic games to be 
held in Mexico City and of the preparations Mexico was making to 
include not onty sporting events but cultural and artistic activities 
as well. Mexican delegates pointed out that the construction of new 
facilities designed with regard to its potential for long-term improve- 
ment of the infrastructure of the country. 

Descriptions of tourism and educational and cultural exchange 
programs were accompanied by statements confirming their import- 
ance to both countries. The importance of desalinization programs, 
irrigation projects and funds for new housing were noted, particularly 
by the Mexican delegation. Both the United States and the Mexican 
representatives felt that the demand for education, housing and 



34 

health facilities in Mexico constituted a serious problem and the 
importance and appreciation of aid money for these areas was ex- 
pressed. The report of the United States delegation stated that it 
was informally agreed that the population problem, not on the agenda, 
was "the most critical and pressing problem for our times." 



Eighth Meeting, Honolulu, Hawaii, April 12-16, 1968 

United States Delegates 

From the Senate: 

John Sparkman, of Alabama, Chairman. 

Mike Mansfield, of Montana. 

Ernest Gruening, of Alaska. 

Frank E. Moss, of Utah. 

Daniel K. Inouye, of Hawaii. 

Hiram L. Fong, of Hawaii. 

Len B. Jordan, of Idaho. 

Robert P. Griffin, of Michigan. 
From the House of Representatives: 

James C. Wright, Jr., of Texas, Acting Chairman. 

Eligio de la Garza, of Texas. 

Patsy T. Mink, of Hawaii. 

Thomas P. O'Neill, Jr., of Massachusetts. 

William L. Springer, of Illinois. 

James Harvey, of Michigan. 

James A. McClure, of Idaho. 

Guy Vander Jagt, of Michigan. 

Marvin L. Esch, of Michigan. 

Mexican Delegates 
From the Senate: 

Ezequiel Padilla Pefialoza, of Guerrero. 

Manuel Tello, of Zacatecas. 

Maria Lavalle Urbina, of Campeche. 

Cristobal Guzman Cardenas, of Durango. 

Rafael Murillo Vidal, of Veracruz. 

Hermenegildo Cuenca Diaz, of Baja California. 

Luis Gonzalez Aparicio, of the Federal District. 

Mario C. Olivera, of Mexico. 

Raul Bolafios Cacho, of Oaxaca. 

Oswaldo Cravioto Cisneros, of Hidalgo. 

Luis Gomez Zepeda, of Aguascalientes. 

Manuel Sanchez Vite, of Hidalgo. 
From the Chamber of Deputies: 

Octavio A. Hernandez Gonzalez, of the Federal District. 

Victor Manzanilla Schaffer, of Yucatan. 

Ignacio Guzman Garduno, of the Federal District. 

Rene Tirado Fuentes, of Puebla. 

Heriberto Ramos Gonzalez, of Coahuila. 

Joaquin Gamboa Pascoe, of the Federal District. 

Jesus Elias Pifia, of Tamaulipas. 

Maria Guadelupe Calder6n de Herrera, of Michoac&n. 

Alberto Briceno Ruiz, of the Federal District. 

Juan Manuel Gomez Morin Torres, of the Federal District. 

(35) 



36 

Hesiquio Aguilar Marafion ,of Veracruz. 

Ignacio Pichardo Pagaza, of Mexico. 

Juan Manuel Berlanga Garcia, of Coahuila. 

The U.S. and Mexican delegations arrived separately in Honolulu 
on April 11 where they were welcomed by Governor Burns. On the 
following day, both delegations visited the Center for Cultural and 
Technical Interchange Between East and West. The formal sessions 
of the conference were held on April 13-16. Discussions were focused 
on three committees dealing with political, economic, and social 
matters. While in Honolulu, the delegations met informally with 
President Johnson. 

At the conclusion of the formal meetings, the heads of the two 
delegations issued a joint statement in which they reaffirmed their 
confidence in the utility of the Interparliamentary Group meetings, 
noted the progress on bilateral problems such as the Chamizal, and 
the purification of waters of the Colorado and Rio Grande Rivers, 
expressed agreement over the objectives of the Treaty of Tlatelolco, 
Protocol II, and indicated confidence in the Organization of American 
States and the informal flow of tourists as means of reinforcing common 
hemispheric bonds. 

Committee I — Political 

Both delegations noted the extraordinary harmony existing be- 
tween the two nations and at the conference, a harmony based on 
achievements during the previous year of a momentous nature. The 
Treaty of Tlatelolco banning nuclear weapons use in the Western 
Hemisphere had been signed, the OAS charter revision had been ap- 
proved by the U.S. Senate, and both countries had approved a project 
for building a nuclear desalinization plant in the Gulf of California. 
The Mexican delegation emphasized the importance of developing 
nuclear power for peace. The U.S. delegation reaffirmed its adherence 
to the principle of nonintervention but stressed the importance of 
developing constitutional systems which would permit the orderly 
transfer of power and leadership in hemisphere nations. 

Committee II — Economic 

U.S. rapporteur Senator Inom r e summarized the differences between 
the United States and Mexico with respect to economic policies as 
arising from two basic facts : 

First, trade between the United States and Mexico represents a much larger 
percentage of Mexico's foreign trade than it represents of U.S. foreign trade. 
Second, Mexico, as a country in the process of development, naturally seeks wider 
and easier access to the U.S. market, while the United States feels constrained to 
fit its trade policies into a broader global market. 

A Mexican delegate affirmed the critical importance of U.S. trade 
for Mexico by pointing out that 62.9 percent of the latter's purchases 
and 53.8 percent of its sales were made in the United States. The 
Mexican delegation hoped that the United States would be able to 
make progress in price stabilization and negotiation of commodity 
agreements, achievement of lower tariffs, and — in accord with Third 
World views expressed at UNCTAD meetings — restraining its own 
production of raw materials. The Mexican delegation expressed its 
concern about protectionist tendencies in the United States and 
stressed the importance of assistance in providing housing for their 



37 

people. The U.S. delegation noted their constraints in both these 
areas: one, a real feeling of protectionism in the U.S., and two, internal 
problems in the U.S. in financing its own housing industry, particu- 
larly at a time when the Vietnam War was making drains on the 
economy. Both delegations noted with approval the movement for 
the economic integration of Latin America. 

Committee III — Social 

The Social Committee discussed a number of matters where the 
two countries faced problems: illegal aliens, taxes on imports of goods 
brought home by tourists, the assembling of materials produced in 
the United States and Mexico and then sold in the United States, 
and the use of water. Mexico received more than 40 percent of its 
foreign exchange from tourism and the Mexican delegation noted that 
any restrictions in this area caused hardship, for example, the limita- 
tion on tax-free goods U.S. visitors could bring home with them. 
Senator Gruening felt that Mexico had more to offer the United 
States "than any country in the world" and pointed out that he also 
opposed any such taxes. 

The U.S. delegation noted objections its labor unions had raised 
with respect to the assembling of U.S. produced materials in Mexico 
for resale in the U.S. The Mexican delegation pointed out that this 
program benefitted materials producers in the U.S. and that the wages 
earned in Mexico were frequently spent in the United States. A Mexi- 
can delegate suggested that Mexican labor unions get in touch with 
U.S. labor to explain the benefits of the program which others pointed 
out had been well received along both sides of the border. 

In addressing water problems, the Mexican delegation felt that a 
formal agreement should be reached regarding the digging of both 
public and private wells in the Yuma area so as not to prejudice the 
farming potential of the San Luis plateau. The issue of flood control 
was raised in regard to the Tijuana River and the Lower Rio Grande; 
in both instances, the two delegations noted that the International 
Boundary and Water Commission had already taken affirmative and 
constructive action. 

Unanimous concern was expressed by both delegations on the 
importance of the population problem, the need for family planning 
facilities and programs, and the importance of having such programs 
be voluntary and educational in nature. 



Ninth Meeting, Aguascalientes, Mexico, April 2-8, 1969 
United States Delegates 

From the Senate: 

Mike Mansfield, of Montana, Chairman. 

Robert C. Byrd, of West Virginia. 

Thomas J. Dodd, of Connecticut. 

Vance Hartke, of Indiana. 

Gaylord Nelson, of Wisconsin. 

Joseph M. Montoya, of New Mexico. 

Mike Gravel, of Alaska. 

Jacob K. Javits, of New York. 

Jack Miller, of Iowa. 

Paul J. Fannin, of Arizona. 

William B. Saxbe, of Ohio. 
From the House of Representatives: 

Robert N. C. Nix, of Pennsvlvania, Chairman. 

James C. Wright, Of Texas. 

Harold T. Johnson, of California. 

Eligio de la Garza, of Texas. 

James W. Symington, of Missouri. 

Sherman P. Lloyd, of Utah. 

Sam Steiger, of Arizona. 

J. Irving Whalley, of Pennsylvania. 

George Bush, of Texas. 

Manuel Lujan, Jr., of New Mexico. 

Abraham Kazen, Jr., of Texas. 

Mexican Delegates 

From the Senate: 

Manuel Tello, of Zacatecas. 

Baltazar R. Leyva Mancilla, of Guerrero. 

Arturo Moguel Esponda, of Chiapas. 

Gonzalo Bautista O'Farril, of Puebla. 

Carlos Loret de Mola Mediz, of Yucatan. 

Eulalio Gutierrez Trevifio, of Coahuila. 

Manuel Sarmiento Sarmiento, of Sinaloa. 

Raul Llanos Lerma, of Nayarit. 

Antonio Flores Mazari, of Morelos. 

Alicia Arellano Tapia, of Sonora. 

Mario C. Olivera Gomez 'Fugle, of Mexico. 

Ramon Osorio y Carvajal, of Yucatan. 

Eliseo Rodriguez Ramirez, of Guanajuato. 
From the Chamber of Deputies: 

Ignacio Guzman Garduno, of the Federal District. 

Elesiquio Aguilar Maranon, of Veracruz. 

Ignacio Pichardo Pagaza, of Mexico. 

(38) 



39 

Jose Arana Moran, of Queretaro. 

Raul Noriega Ondovilla, of the Federal District. 

Bias Chumacero, Sanchez, of Puebla. 

Leopoldo Hernandez Partida, of Jalisco. 

Alberto Briceno Ruiz, of the Federal District. 

Joaquin Gamboa Pascoe, of the Federal District. 

Maria Elena Jimenez Lozano, of the Federal District. 

Rafael Preciado Hernandez, of the Federal District. 

Hilario Galguera Torres, of the Federal District. 

Juan Manuel Berlanga, of Coahuila. 
The U.S. delegation arrived in Mexico City April 2 and was later 
received by President Gustavo Diaz Ordaz. The two delegations then 
proceeded together to Aguascalientes where the formal sessions of 
the Conference were held on April 3 and 4. On April 5 the two dele- 
gations went to Cozumel and on April 8 the U.S. delegation returned 
to Washington, D.C. 

At the closing session of the conference, each delegation reported 
separately on the work of each of the three committees into which the 
Conference was divided — political, economic, and social matters. In 
addition, the leaders of the two delegations issued a joint statement 
of principles dealing with the successes of interparliamentary meetings, 
respect for democratic principles, support of the U.N. and O.A.S., 
promotion of technical, cultural, and tourist interchange, support of 
balanced economic development, maintenance of increased com- 
mercial trade, and expression of gratitude to the people of Aguasca- 
lientes for sponsorship of the Conference. 

Committee I — Political 

The U.S. delegation pointed to several successes of interparlia- 
mentary meetings between the two nations, most notably the in- 
vestigation of the practicability of a nuclear powered plant which 
would convert sea water and produce energy for the arid regions of 
Northwest Mexico and the U.S. Southwest. 

Topics discussed by the delegations included: Mexico's interpreta- 
tion of international law relating to nonintervention and self-deter- 
mination for nations; the transferring of water from areas of abundance 
to arid areas in both nations; the impact of the Nuclear Nonpro- 
liferation Treaty on Mexico and an explanation of the U.S. Senate's 
role in the passage of the Treaty; the possible formation of a Pacific 
Area Association of nations bordering the Pacific to discuss their 
mutual problems relating to trade, transportation, and economic 
interests. 

The Mexican delegation presented the background and provisions 
of the Treaty of Tlatelolco which deals with a Latin American zone 
free of atomic weapons. The U.S. delegation pointed out that the 
United States has signed Protocol II of the Treaty, which, in essence, 
respects the denuclearization of the region. 

The final subject before the Committee concerned the Second 
Development Decade and U.S. interests in helping less developed 
nations. The kinds of assistance and impact on recipient nations was 
discussed, as was the topic of population growth and food production. 

Committee II — Economic 

The committee considered trading problems between the two coun- 
tries on a commodity-by-commodity basis. Attention was given to 



40 

sugar, coffee, a variety of fruits and vegetables, cotton, cedar and 
mahogany plywood, henequen, tar and resin, barite, iron and steel, 
handicraft products, meat, mercury, and candelilla wax. The Mexican 
delegation asked for more liberal U.S. trade policies, either through 
action to increase U.S. imports or through refraining from imposing 
tariffs or quota limitations. The U.S. delegation in general was sympa- 
thetic to the problems but several delegates pointed to the deficit in 
U.S. balance of payments and the costs of the Vietnam war. 

The Mexican delegation wanted the United States to remove, or at 
least reduce, restrictions on the value of goods returning American 
tourists may bring into the country duty free. The U.S. delegation, 
however, viewed these restrictions as necessary to correct the balance- 
of-payments deficit. 

The Mexican delegation expressed concern over high U.S. interest 
rates and the increased profit remittances of U.S. companies operating 
in Mexico. This delegation also endorsed the recommendations of the 
U.N. Conference on Trade and Development relating to preferential 
tariff treatment by industrialized countries of the manufactured and 
semi-manufactured exports of less developed countries. The U.S. 
delegation urged Mexico to take a leading role in transforming Latin 
America into a true common market. 

Additional areas touched upon by the delegations included : correc- 
tion of the problem of in-bond stores selling tax-free merchandise in the 
U.S. for export to Mexico, control of the narcotics traffic, customs 
treatment of border trade, joint action to solve the screw worm prob- 
lem, continuation of regulations to govern shrimping in the Gulf of 
Mexico, location of international bridges across the Rio Grande, the 
problems associated with border industrialization in terms of employ- 
ment opportunities and organized labor opposition, and the possibili- 
ties of the U.S. extending loans to Mexico, especially in the areas of 
agriculture and livestock. 

Committee III — Social 

Four major topics were discussed by this committee: tourism, cul- 
tural exchanges, the Commission for Border Development and Friend- 
ship, and the so-called "green card workers." 

Under the subject of tourism, attention was focused on ways to 
expand the tourist trade. The possibilities for such expansion would 
include the holding of a Mexico-U.S. exposition, special group flights at 
reduced rates, and enhancing of facilities in each country for all classes 
of tourists. 

In the area of cultural and scientific exchanges, attention was drawn 
to student scholarships, professional exchanges, and scientific co- 
operation. Both delegations sought to expand cultural exchange pro- 
grams. 

Due to the almost 2,000 miles of common border between the two 
countries, the delegations supported the work of the Commission for 
Border Development. The Commission served as a means to solve 
problems in the area of health, sanitation, urbanization, beautifica- 
tion, trade, security, transportation and communications. Both dele- 
gations hoped that the Commission could tackle the problem of re- 
strictions imposed by Mexico and the U.S. on tourist trade goods. 



41 

The final topic addressed by the Committee was the commuter 
alien issue or the so-called "green card workers." With the exception of 
organized labor in the United States there was little objection by U.S. 
border residents to current practices. Both delegations hoped that labor 
unions in each country would continue their negotiations to resolve the 
problem. 



Tenth Meeting, Washington, D.C., May 4-10, 1970 

United States Delegates 

From the Senate: 

Mike Mansfield, of Montana, Chairman. 

Alan Bible, of Nevada. 

Jennings Randolph, of West Virginia. 

Gale W. McGee, of Wyoming. 

Daniel K. Inouye, of Hawaii. 

Joseph M. Montoya, of New Mexico. 

Fred R. Harris, of Oklahoma. 

George D. Aiken, of Vermont. 

John Sherman Cooper, of Kentucky. 

George Murphy, of California. 

Paul J. Fannin, of Arizona. 

Barry Goldwater, of Arizona. 
From the House of Representatives: 

Robert N. C. Nix, of Pennsylvania, Chairman. 

James C. Wright, Jr., of Texas. 

Harold T. Johnson, of California. 

Henry B. Gonzalez, of Texas. 

Eligio de la Garza, of Texas. 

Donald M. Fraser, of Minnesota. 

James W. Symington, of Missouri. 

Abraham Karzen, Jr., of Texas 

George Bush, of Texas. 

Sam Steiger, of Arizona. 

Sherman P. Lloyd, of Utah. 

Vernon W. Thomson, of Wisconsin. 

Charles E. Wiggins, of California. 

Manuel Lujan, Jr., of New Mexico. 

Mexican Delegates 
From the Senate: 

Manuel Tello, of Zacatecas. 

Mario C. Olivera Gomez Tagle, of Mexico. 

Cristobal Guzman Cardenas, of Durango. 

Arturo Moguel Esponda, of Chiapas. 

Alicia Arellano Tapia, of Sonora. 

Mario Morua Johnson, of Sonora. 

Luis Gomez Zepada, of Aguascalientes. 

Manuel Sarmiento Sarmiento, of Sinaloa. 

Raul Llanos Lerma, of Nayarit. 

Raul Bolanos Cacho, of Oaxaca. 
From the Chamber of Deputies: 

Alfonso de Alba Martin, of Jalisco. 

Hesiquio Aguilar Maranon, of Veracruz. 

(42) 



43 

Raul Noriega Ondovilla, of the Federal District. 

Maria Guadalupe Aguirre Soria, of the Federal District. 

Adolfo Ruiz Sosa, of the Federal District. 

Alfonso Meneses Gonzalez, of Puebla. 

Juan Manuel Berlanga, of Coahuila. 

Ignacio Gonzalez Rubio, of Jalisco. 

Jose Arana Moran, of Queretaro. 

Silverio R. Alvarado, of Veracruz. 

Jose Angel Conchello Davila, of the Federal District. 

Hilario Galguera Torres, of the Federal District. 

Alfonso Argudin Alcaraz, of Guerrero. 
The Mexican delegation arrived in Washington on May 4, prior to 
the formal sessions of the conference which were held on May 5 and 6. 
The conference was opened with an address by Secretary of State 
William P. Rogers, after which discussants divided into two working 
committees, one dealing with political and social affairs, the other 
concentrating on economic affairs. At the end of the first day's dis- 
cussions, the two delegations were received by President Nixon at 
the White House. Following the conclusion of the formal sessions, the 
delegations traveled to San Francisco where they attended a reception 
by Mayor Alioto in city hall, and viewed an Army Corps of Engineers' 
hydraulic model of San Francisco Bay used for ecological studies. 

Committee I — Political and Social Affairs 

Discussion focused on the salinity of the Colorado River, tourism, 
Mexican migratory workers, and drug control. 

In view of the increasing worldwide concern to protect the environ- 
ment, discussants agreed that full cooperation between the two neigh- 
boring countries was required, and the services of the professional staff 
of the Public Works Committee of the U.S. Senate were offered to the 
Mexicans for purposes of exchanging ideas or airing difficulties in 
tackling pollution. The U.S. delegation pledged further efforts to 
eliminate the harmful effects on Mexico of salinity in the Colorado 
River. 

In connection with tourism, the Mexican delegation cited harmful 
effects of the U.S. limitations since 1965 on duty-free purchases by 
American tourists, particularly since the balance of trade between the 
countries is unfavorable to Mexico, while proportionately more Mexi- 
cans travel to the U.S. than vice versa and spend more per capita than 
their American counterparts. 

Regarding Mexican frontier commuters and migratory farmworkers, 
the Mexican delegation urged continuation of laws permitting daily 
"green card" commuters, while also urging joint efforts to regulate 
the flow (since the termination of the bracero program in 1964) of 
illegal, easily exploitable Mexican farm laborers. 

On narcotics control, while the U.S.-initiated ' 'Operation Inter- 
cept" of September 1969 had temporarily created ill feeling, discus- 
sants emphasized the 40 year-long history of U.S. -Mexican coopera- 
tion in drug traffic control, agreeing that joint consultation and pro- 
grams were absolutely indispensible for a successful resolution of the 
problem. 



76-432 O - 76 



44 

Committee II — Economic Affairs 

Discussions concentrated on trade restrictions, the border industries 
program, and the termination by the United States of "soft loans" to 
Mexico. 

The Mexican delegation was particularly critical of U.S. restrictive 
trade measures which affect Mexico since Mexico sells much less to the 
United States than it buys, creating a highly unfavorable balance of 
trade. Specifically it was noted that restrictions or limitations affect 
Mexican exports of melons, strawberries, tomatoes, frozen beef, other 
beef, cotton, and textiles, products of great importance to Mexico since 
most of its exports are agricultural. In the area of fishing it was pointed 
out that the United States uses up 90 percent of the total annual quota 
of the yellow-fin tuna catch allocated by the Inter-American Tuna 
Commission and create other licensing requirements which prevent 
Mexico from exporting fish to the United States. The reduction of 
tariff or non-tariff barriers was urged as a solution. 

On general trade matters the Mexican delegation expressed concern 
about protectionist features of the Trade Act under consideration in 
Congress, while urging the establishment by the United States, in line 
with presidential declarations, of a generalized system of non-recipro- 
cal tariff preferences for developing countries. 

Regarding the border assembly industries, the Mexican delegation 
argued that the program was mutually beneficial to both countries, 
not resulting in the loss of jobs in the United States, in part because a 
considerable percentage of wages paid to Mexicans is spent in U.S. 
border cities, a characteristic distinguishing Mexico from other low 
labor cost countries. 

Also of concern to the Mexican delegation was the ending by AID of 
soft loans to Mexico on grounds that Mexico had attained a relatively 
high level of economic development in Latin America. Since much of 
Mexico remains backward and underdeveloped, the Mexicans argued 
that low interest loans are vitally needed and completely justified. The 
United States delegation expressed a willingness to continue to co- 
operate with Mexico in a wide variety of developmental projects of 
mutual concern to both countries. 



Eleventh Meeting, Puerto Vallarta, May 27-31, 1971 

United States Delegates 
From the Senate: 

Mike Mansfield, of Montana, Chairman. 

Robert C. Byrd, of West Virginia. 

Henry M. Jackson, of Washington. 

Joseph M. Montoya, of New Mexico. 

Lloyd M. Bentsen, Jr., of Texas. 

Lawton Chiles, of Florida. 

George D. Aiken, of Vermont. 

Marlow W. Cook, of Kentucky. 

Edward J. Gurney, of Florida. 
From the House of Representatives: 

Robert X. C. Nix, of Pennsylvania, Chairman. 

James C. Wright, Jr., of Texas. 

Eligio de la Garza, of Texas. 

John E. Moss, of California. 

Abraham Kazen, Jr., of Texas. 

Morris K. Udall, of Arizona. 

William J. Randall, of Missouri. 

Peter H. B. Frelinghuysen, of New Jersey. 

Vernon W. Thomson, of Wisconsin. 

Sam Steiger, of Arizona. 

Charles E. Wiggins, of California. 

Manuel Lujan, Jr., of New Mexico. 

Mexican Delegates 
From the Senate: 

Victor Manzanilla Schaffer, of Yucatan. 

Gilberto Suarez Torres, of Oaxaca. 

Alejandro Carrillo Marcor, of Sonora. 

Salvador Gamiz Fernandez, of Durango. 

Miguel Angel Barberena Vega, of Aguascalientes. 

Pascual Bellizia Castaneda, of Tabasco. 

Guillermo Morales Blumenkron, of Puebla. 

Ignacio Maciel Salcedo, of Jalisco. 

Juan Sabines Gutierrez, of Chiapas. 

Florencio Salazar Martinez, of San Luis Potosi. 

Franciso Perez Rios, of Mexico. 

German Corona del Rosal, of Hidalgo. 

Vicente Juarez Carro, of Tlaxcala. 
From the Chamber of Deputies: 

Santiago Roel Garcia, of Nuevo Leon. 

Oscar de la Torre Padilla, of Jalisco. 

Juan Moises Calleja Garcia, of the Federal District. 

Oscar Hammeken Martinez, of the Federal District. 

(45) 



46 

Celso H. Delgado Ramirez, of Nayarit. 

Alejandro Peraza Uribe, of Yucatan. 

Renato Vega Alvarado, of Sinaloa. 

Alfredo V. Bonfil Pinto, of Queretaro. 

Leon Michel Vega, of the Federal District. 

Ignacio F. Herrerias Montoya, of the Federal District. 

Salvador Resendiz Arreola, of Michoacan. 

Marco Antonio Ros Martinez, of Veracruz. 

Luis Horacio Salinas Aguilera, of Coahuila. 
The U.S. delegation arrived in Mexico City on May 27 and, after 
meeting the Mexican delegation, went to the Presidential Palace 
where they were received by President Luis Echeverria. The entire 
group, acting on the impromptu suggestion of the President, then 
proceeded to the statute of the great 19th century Mexican, Benito 
Juarez, to pay their respects. After lunch, the two delegations travelled 
separately to Puerto Vallarta where the formal meetings were held 
on May 28 and 29, with discussions organized into committees dealing 
with political, economic, and social affairs. On Monday, May 31, the 
two delegations travelled jointly to Guadalajara to visit the Casa de 
la Cultura, the site of the First Interparliamentary Conference ten 
years before. 

At the conclusion of the conference, the two delegations, in a joint 
statement, recognized the importance of the "friendly dialog" of the 
inter-parliamentary meetings, affirmed that strengthened common 
friendship and respect for principles of law and justice will produce 
advantageous settlements of present and future conflicts, and 
reiterated the conviction that the democratic form of government is 
most appropriate for both countries. With respect to the items 
discussed, the joint statement affirmed that commercial trade on 
a basis of reciprocity is mutually beneficial, that expanded tourist 
and cultural exchange was desirable, that treaties and reciprocity 
should govern the development of border resources, that the Colorado 
River problem required satisfactory resolution, and that legislators 
ought to seek legislative solutions to common problems in their 
respective nations in order to strenghten friendship between the 
countries. 

Committee I — Political Affairs 

The most important matter on this committee's agenda was the 
increasing salinity of Colorado River water delivered to Mexico. The 
U.S. delegation, while pointing out political differences among the 
western states and the promise of several long-term projects, agreed 
that the United States was obligated by treaty to provide usable 
water to Mexico in the short term. Hopes for a diplomatic solution 
were expressed by both delegations and Senator Jackson announced 
that the Senate Interior Committee would hold hearings on the 
matter. 

On other matters, both delegations felt that relations between the 
countries "have never been better," that meetings between the 
Presidents produced beneficial results, that Mexico's initiative to 
create a nuclear free zone in Latin America was admirable, and that 
the establishment of a Pan America Highway Administration would 
maximize mutual benefits of the highway. The U.S. delegation also 



47 

urged Mexican agreement to joint efforts to eradicate the screw worm 
by moving the border eradication zone further south to the narrow 
Isthmus of Tehuantepec. 

Committee II — Economic Affairs 

To improve the balance of trade between the countries, the Mexican 
delegation urged tariff-free admission of a number of primarily 
agricultural commodities into the American market. While pointing 
to historical trading patterns, higher American labor costs, and U.S. 
aid to developing countries throughout the world and rising pressure 
in the United States to adopt protectionist measures, the U.S. dele- 
gation was impressed with Mexican efforts to assist small farmers and 
promote foreign trade through the Institute for Foreign Trade. 
Members of both delegations recognized that Mexico had been 
unintentionally harmed by legislation limiting the duty-free purchases 
of American tourists abroad. 

On related matters, the U.S. delegation urged further study of 
Mexico's request for legislation to repeal laws requiring American 
companies abroad to return profits to the parent companies in the 
United States, and to continue cooperative efforts to prevent smug- 
gling of goods into Mexico without discouraging legal trade. 

Committee III — Social Affairs 

This committee focused on educational exchanges, migratory 
workers, and illegal trafficking of drugs. 

To expand educational and cultural exchanges, it was felt that 
exchange agreements dating back to the 1940's and early 1950's 
required updating, that obstacles to foreign study, e.g. increased 
tuition for foreign students, should be eliminated, and that private 
organizations, such as labor unions, professional associations, and 
universities, should be encouraged to promote more exchanges. 

Considering the problem of Mexican migratory workers entering 
the United States illegally since the termination of the bracero pro- 
gram, sometimes at the urging of unscrupulous U.S. employers, it 
was felt that "both sides have a responsibility to insure that their 
citizens respect and obey not only their own immigration laws but 
those of their neighbors as well." 

On control of narcotics traffic, the Mexican delegation pointed out 
that the problem for Mexico is principally the result of high demand 
for narcotics in the United States, with American purchasers offering 
tremendous economic incentives to Mexican farmers to produce 
illegal drugs. For its part, Mexico had doubled and tripled its efforts 
to seize and eradicate drug products before they cross the border. It 
was suggested that the United States increase and rigidly enforce 
penalties against those caught purchasing drugs in Mexico for resale 
in the United States, taking care not to infringe on Mexico's domestic 
jurisdiction. Joint, cooperative action on this matter w T as applauded 
by all. 



Twelfth Meeting, New Orleans, May 16-21, 1972 

United States Delegates 

From the Senate: 

Mike Mansfield, of Montana, Chairman. 

Gaylord Nelson, of Wisconsin. 

Joseph M. Montoya, of New Mexico. 

Lawton Chiles, of Florida. 

George D. Aiken, of Vermont. 

Marlow W. Cook, of Kentucky. 
From the House of Representatives: 

James C. Wright, Jr., of Texas, Acting Chairman. 

Eligio de la Garza, of Texas. 

Abraham Kazen, Jr., of Texas. 

Hale Boggs, of Louisiana. 

Peter H. B. Frelinghuysen, of New Jersey. 

Charles E. Wiggins, of California. 

Manuel Lujan, Jr., of New Mexico. 

Charles Thone, of Nebraska. 

J. Herbert Burke, of Florida. 

Mexican Delegates 
From the Senate: 

Victor Manzanilla Schaffer, of Yucatan. 

Alejandro Carrillo Marcor, of Sonora. 

Oscar Flores Tapia, of Coahuila. 

Jose Rivera Perez Campos, of Guanajuato. 

Enrique Gonzalez Pedrero, of Tabasco. 

Martin Luis Guzman Franco, of the Federal District. 

Ramiro Yafiez Cordoba, of Zacetecas. 

Gilberto Suarez Torres, of Oaxaca. 

Miguel Barberena Vega, Of Aguascalientes. 

Guillermo Morales Blumenkron, of Puebla. 

German Corona del Rosal, of Hidalgo. 

Francisco Aguilar Hernandez, of Morelos. 

Juvier Garcia Paniagua, of Jalisco. 

Guillermo Fonseca Alvarez, of San Luis Potosi. 

Aurora Ruyalcaba Gutierrez, of Colima. 

Carlos Perez Camara, of Campeche. 
From the Chamber of Deputies: 

Santiago Roel Garcia, of Nuevo Le6n. 

Marcos Manuel Suarez Ruiz, of Morelos. 

Salvador Resendiz Arreola, of Michoacan. 

Guillermina Sanchez Mesa de Solis, of the Federal District. 

Luis Horacio Salinas Aguilera, of Coahuila. 

Francisco Zarate Vidal, of Baja California. 

Oscar Hammeken Martinez, of the Federal District. 

(48) 



49 

Hilda Anderson Nevares, of the Federal District. 

Jose Peniche Bolio, of the Federal District. 

Jose Carlos Osorio Aguilar, of Jalisco. 

Ignacio F. Herrerias Montoya, of the Federal District. 

Antonio Melgar Aranda, of Chiapas. 

Enrique Soto Resendiz, of Hidalgo. 

J. Jesus Yanez Castro, of Zacatecas. 
After the arrival of the Mexican delegation on May 16, the two 
delegations met and went directly to the White House where they 
were greeted by President and Mrs. Nixon, after which they pro- 
ceeded to wreath-laying ceremonies at the Benito Juarez statue and 
the Lincoln Memorial. The two delegations then flew separately to 
New Orleans where formal discussions organized into three committees 
were held on May 17 and 18. At the conclusion, on May 19, the two 
delegations proceeded jointly to St. Croix, United States Virgin 
Islands, in accordance with the tradition of visiting parts of the host 
country other than the site of the conference. 

The joint statement issued at the conclusion of the conference 
affirmed that relations between Mexico and the United States were 
excellent; that the main problem between the countries, requiring a 
prompt, effective solution, was the salinity of the lower Colorado 
River; that cooperation was necessary to increase cultural exchanges, 
to control drug traffic and the illicit shipment of cultural property, to 
ameliorate the conditions of migrant workers, to control environ- 
mental pollution, and to arrive at joint solutions concerning the Law 
of the Sea; that disagreements concerning trade matters should be 
resolved according to fair and just formulas; that both delegations 
recognize the usefulness of the Inter-American Development Bank 
as an instrument of financial support for Mexico. 

Committee I — Political Affairs 

Discussants felt that the most pressing problem between Mexico 
and the United States was the continuing high salinity of the lower 
Colorado River, preventing the United States from delivering usable 
water to Mexico as required by the Water Treaty of 1944. The Mexi- 
can delegation presented two proposed solutions, one juridical, to 
amend the 1944 treaty to provide that Mexico be entitled to water of 
the same quality as that in the Imperial Valley; the other practical, 
that the United States build a diverting canal to discharge the con- 
taminated water in the Gulf of California or the Salton Sea. Both dele- 
gations recognized the need to find an effective, prompt, non-litigious 
solution to the problem. Members of the American delegation promised 
to redouble efforts, arguing that a way had to be found to establish a 
desalinization plant in this modern age of scientific advances. 

More generally, this problem demonstrated the intricate inter- 
relationship of the countries and the need for cooperative, long range 
efforts to tackle environmental pollution of the air, soil, seas and 
water. Preliminary points of view were exchanged concerning the 
U.N. Environmental Conference to be held in Stockholm and the 
possible establishment of a border committee to prevent or control 
various forms of pollution. 

Discussing other topics, the delegates praised the Treaty of Tlatelolco 
which prohibits nuclear weapons in Latin America while favoring the 



50 

peaceful use of nuclear power for the production of energy, desaliniza- 
tion of water, and matters related to health. A plant in Mission, Texas, 
utilized in a bilateral program for the eradication of the screw worm, 
was cited as an excellent example. 

Differences of opinion relating to shrimp fishing and the Law of the 
Sea conference were aired, both delegations concluding that full under- 
standing and the conclusion of agreements between the countries was 
necessar}^ to provide equitable and effective regulation of fishing. 

Progress was reported on construction of the Pan American high- 
way through the Darien Gap and the proposed creation of an OAS 
committee to recommend ways to jointly utilize the highway, to 
simplify customs and border procedures, and to establish safeguards 
against intrusion through the Darien Gap of hoof and mouth disease. 

Committee II — Economic Affairs 

On trade matters, members of the Mexican delegation wanted U.S. 
barriers to its exports lowered or eliminated, particularly health 
restrictions and seasonal tariffs on agricultural products (tomatoes 
being a leading example). More generally, they urged adoption by 
the United States of UNCTAD-mandated generalized tariff pref- 
erences for the less developed countries (LDC's). While favoring these 
advances, the Mexicans were even more apprehensive about protec- 
tionist sentiment in the United States, fearing that existing barriers 
might be raised. The U.S. delegation pointed to current difficulties, 
namely inflation, unemployment, and balance of payments deficits as 
causes, predicting U.S. adoption of trade preferences for developing 
countries in due course. 

The Mexican delegation strongly urged support for the Charter of 
Economic Rights and Duties of States proposed by President Eche- 
verria at the United Nations Conference on Trade and Development 
(UNCTAD) in Santiago. The Charter provides for state control of 
natural resources, a state's right to adopt the economic system which 
suits it, prohibition of economic pressure by foreign states or multi- 
national corporations, commodity stabilization agreements, and ex- 
panded economic assistance for development without strings. These 
proposals inspired heated discussion, with most members of the U.S. 
delegation feeling that the Charter would find little support in Con- 
gress. 

Committee III — Social Affairs 

Discussion focused on prevention of illegal export of cultural arti- 
facts from Mexico, educational exchanges, reduction of drug traffic, 
tourism, and Mexican migrant laborers. 

Members of the Mexican delegation expressed grave concern for the 
illegal removal from Mexico of archeological, historical and cultural 
artifacts for resale in the United States, noting the obligation of the 
United States under treaty to assist in the recovery of stolen cultural 
objects. The United States delegation emphasized the shared concern 
of Congress, indicating that various steps had been taken including 
ratification of a bilateral treaty with Mexico last year, passage by the 
House of Representatives of legislation prohibiting import of certain 
pre-Columbian artifacts illegally removed from the country of origin, 
and expected passage by the Senate of the UNESCO Convention on 
stolen cultural property. The need for multilateral cooperation in this 
area was recognized by both delegations. 



51 

After discussion, there was full agreement on the part of the dele- 
gates to increase cultural, scientific and technical exchanges between 
the two countries, with a more active participation on the official level, 
through programs such as the Lincoln- Juarez scholarships. 

Both delegations expressed satisfaction with cooperative efforts to 
control illegal drug traffic, particularly the strenuous efforts by the 
Government of Mexico. The United States delegation noted concern 
with the lengthy delay before trial of young Americans arrested iu 
Mexico for violation of drug laws, while the Mexican delegates in- 
dicated that U.S. customs inspectors should show more respect for the 
dignity of Mexicans enteriug the country. 

On questions on tourism and migratory workers, the issues were 
fully discussed and sympathy was expressed for Mexico's position. 
Nevertheless, given economic conditions, the United States delegation 
indicated that there seemed little possibility for increasing the duty- 
free allowance for Americans visiting Mexico or for re-establishing a 
bracero-type program for Mexican contract laborers. 



Thirteenth Meeting, Guanajuato, Mexico, May 24-29, 1973 

United States Delegates 

From the Senate: 

Mike Mansfield, of Montana, Chairman. 

Jennings Randolph, of West Virginia. 

Frank E. Moss, of Utah. 

Harry F. Byrd, Jr., of Virginia. 

Sam Nunn, of Georgia. 

Floyd Haskell, of Colorado. 

Robert Griffin, of Michigan. 

Charles Percy, of Illinois. 
From the House of Representatives: 

Robert N. C. Nix, of Pennsylvania, Chairman. 

James C. Wright, Jr., of Texas. 

Eligio de la Garza, of Texas. 

Abraham Kazen, of Texas. 

Morris K. Udall, of Arizona. 

Charles E. Wiggins, of California. 

William S. Broomfield, of Michigan. 

J. Herbert Burke, of Florida. 

Clarence Brown, of Ohio. 

Mexican Delegates 
From the Senate: 

Alejandro Carillo Marcor, of Sonora. 

Miguel Angel Barberena Vega, of Aguascalientes. 

Ignacio Maciel Salcedo, of Jalisco. 

Alfonso Sanchez Madariaga, of the Federal District. 

Gustavo Aubanel Vallejo, of Baja California. 

Ramiro Yanez Cordova, of Chiapas. 

Rogelio Flores Curiel, of Nayarit. 

German Corona del Rosal, of Hidalgo. 

Pascual Bellizzia Castaneda, of Tabasco. 

Francisco Aguilar Hernandez, of Morelos. 

Martin Luis Guzman, of the Federal District. 

Norberto Mora Plancarte, of Michoacan. 

Ramon Alcala Ferrara, of Campeche. 

Samuel Terrazas Zozaya, of Veracruz. 

Nicanor Serrano del Castillo, of Tlaxcala. 
From the Chamber of Deputies: 

Rafael Rodriguez Barrera, of Campeche. 

Juan Moises Calleja Garcia, of the Federal District. 

Santiago Roel Garcia, of Nuevo Leon. 

Oscar Hammeken Martinez, of the Federal District. 

Salvador Resendiz Arreola, of Michoacan. 

Guillermina Sanchez Meza de Solis, of the Federal District. 

(52) 



Guillermo Ruiz Vazquez, of Jalisco. 

Antonio Melgar Aranda, of Chiapas. 

Marco Antonio Ros Martinez, of Veracruz. 

Roberto Avila Gonzalez, of Veracruz. 

Ignacio Galvez Rocha, of Michoacan. 

Hector Lutteroth Camou, of Baja California. 

Alejandro Rios Espinosa, of Sinaloa. 

Roman Ferrat Sola, of Mexico. 

Jose Estefan-Acar, of Oaxaca. 

Diamantina Reyes Esparza, of Chihuahua. 

Frida Pabello de Mazzoti, of Veracruz. 
The U.S. delegation arrived for the thirteenth meeting of the 
Mexico-United States Interparliamentary Group on May 24 for 
preliminary activities in Mexico City. The U.S. delegates were 
greeted at the airport by members of the Mexican delegation. The 
group then proceeded to pay brief tribute to Benito Juarez and 
Abraham Lincoln at their respective statues. Subsequently, the 
delegations were guests of President Echeverria for lunch at the 
President's official residence, Los Pinos. The delegations then travelled 
together to Guanajuato where the formal conference sessions were 
held on May 25 and 26. On May 27, the two delegations proceeded 
to Cozumel in the Mexican territory of Quintana Roo where they 
visited until the departure of the U.S. delegation to Washington, D.C. 
on May 29. 

The work of the Group was broken down into three committees for 
the formal sessions. Committees were designated as follows — political 
affairs, economic affairs, and social affairs. 

At the conclusion of the conference, the Chairmen of the two 
delegations issued a joint declaration in which they reiterated their 
faith in the value of the Interparliamenta^ Group meetings, noted the 
importance of the international trade issues faced by both countries, 
cited the continuing salinity problem of the Colorado River, em- 
phasized the need for a just solution to the problems posed by tem- 
porary migrant workers, recognized the importance of regulating drug 
traffic and the illegal export of artifacts from Mexico, and expressed 
confidence in the value of tourism and cultural exchanges to foster 
mutual understanding. 

Committee I — Political Affairs 

Under political affairs, the Mexican delegation urged that the United 
States favorably consider the proposed Charter of Economic Rights 
and Duties of States, first put forward by President Echeverria at the 
UNCTAD conference in Santiago in 1972. The Charter, the Mexican 
delegation explained, was intended to foster a new international sys- 
tem of economic and social justice. The U.S. delegation agreed that 
most people would subscribe to the principles of the charter, although 
there might be differences of opinion with respect to their application 
in specific cases. 

In reference to the continuing problem of the salinity of the Colorado 
River, the U.S. delegates concurred that the United States had a 
treaty obligation to supply Mexico with 1.5 million acre feet a year of 
usable water. The U.S. delegation pointed out that following the 1972 
meeting of Presidents Echeverria and Nixon the United States had 
initiated a serious study to resolve the matter. It was felt by both 
delegations that a just solution would be forthcoming soon. 



54 

With respect to the patrimonial sea, the Mexican delegation pro- 
posed this concept as a solution to the international disputes surround- 
ing the law of the sea. Under this concept, the coastal state's sover- 
eignty would extend 12 miles, but its patrimony — i.e. the exclusive 
right to exploit the resources of the sea and the seabed — would extend 
an additional distance to a maximum of 200 miles. The U.S. welcomed 
these suggestions as another example of Mexican initiative in world 
affairs. 

The discussions of the Tlatelolco Treaty for the Denuclearization of 
Latin America, were inconclusive. Although the Mexican delegation 
urged the United States to ratify Protocol I, the U.S. delegation 
explained that it had not yet accepted this provision because the U.S. 
Government did not desire the application of the treaty to Puerto 
Rico and the Virgin Islands. Nevertheless, the U.S. delegations 
promised to bring the matter before the Joint Committee on Atomic 
Energy. 

With reference to multinational corporations, the Mexican delega- 
tions detailed its new laws which would regulate foreign investment, 
transfers of technology, and the use and exploitation of trademarks. 
In general, these laws, it was explained, would increase Mexican 
participation in foreign enterprises operating in Mexico and regulate 
the contracts for the transfer of technology so as to minimize Mexican 
resources expended for this purpose. The U.S. delegates agreed that 
Mexico has the legal right to regulate business and noted the concern 
of the United States over the activities of multinational corporations. 

The committee also discussed the recent agreement between 
Mexican and American technicians for further studies of a nuclear 
desalinization and electric plant. 

Committee II — Economic Affairs 

With respect to trade problems between Mexico and the United 
States, the Mexican delegation cited a number of U.S. measures, 
including the Trade Reform Bill, as displaying "protectionist tenden- 
cies." The U.S. delegates, though appreciative of the Mexican point 
of view, noted the internal economic and trade deficit situations being 
experienced by the United States. They went on to note that these 
protective measures were understandable and certainly not directed 
against Mexico. As in previous years, the U.S. members also called 
attention to various Mexican import restrictions which were regarded 
by U.S. producers as discriminatory. 

On the matter of border transactions, Mexico enjoyed a favorable 
advantage in trade, tourism, and border transactions in the preceding 
year. The Mexican delegation again suggested that the $100 duty-free 
allowance for returning U.S. nationals be increased. The U.S. delegates 
responded, noting that Mexico already enjoyed preferential treatment 
in this matter in so far as U.S. tourists were permitted to bring in the 
maximum value of goods every 30 days regardless of the actual amount 
of time spent within Mexico. In contrast, the U.S. members observed 
that Mexican restrictions on their returning nationals had become 
more stringent, so much so that U.S. border merchants had experi- 
enced a 50 percent decline in sales. 

Both delegations agreed that the cooperation between the customs 
officials of both countries had improved the "in bond stores" for 



55 

tourists of other countries. Finally, the Mexican delegation expressed 
concern over illegal exports from Mexico. However, the U.S. delegates 
pointed out that this was a matter which could only be solved by 
Mexican authorities. 

In the international field, the U.S. delegation called attention to 
the consistent support offered by the United States for the Inter- 
American Development Bank. The delegates also focused attention on 
the gradual replacement of the dollar by Special Drawing Rights. 

Committee III — Social Affairs 

With reference to the environment, both delegations agreed that 
the border area must be treated as an indivisible region where both 
countries share responsibility for any pollution which might affect 
either side of the border. The U.S. delegation expressed special support 
for the cooperative efforts which have been undertaken, such as the 
eradication of the screw worm, and expressed hope that such mutually 
beneficial endeavors would continue. 

The Mexican delegation noted the importance its Government 
attaches to a broad program of technical, scientific, and cultural 
exchanges. An exchange of teachers was suggested and the U.S. 
delegation agreed that the feasibility of such a program should be 
explored. 

The delegations also discussed the bilateral treaty on the recovery 
of stolen artifacts and the U.S. law barring the importation of illegally 
removed artifacts. The Mexican delegation recommended that the 
United States give greater consideration to the treaties involved. The 
U.S. members responded that the Executive Branch of the United 
States had not yet proposed legislation, although the U.S. Senate had 
given its advice and consent to the UNESCO Convention. 

Both delegations agreed that tourism between the two countries 
should be encouraged. The Mexican delegates received the support of 
their U.S. counterparts when the matter of Mexico's bid to become 
the seat of the World Tourism Organization was discussed. 

The Mexican delegates also described their Government's current 
campaign against drug production and traffic. The U.S. delegates 
were especially pleased with newly proposed Mexican laws which 
would control the production of amphetamines and barbiturates. 

The two delegations also discussed the serious problem posed by 
illegal migratory workers. It was agreed that a new law regulating 
these workers was desirable, but the U.S. delegation noted that this 
move was ill-timed considering the current high unemployment in 
the United States. 

Finally, the possibility of building additional dams on the Mexican 
tributaries to the Rio Grande River below the Falcon Dam was 
discussed as a way to control the periodic flooding of the Rio Grande. 



Fourteenth Meeting, Washington, D.C., May 13-15, 1974 

United States Delegates 

From the Senate: 

Mike Mansfield, of Montana, Chairman. 

Joseph M. Montoya, of New Mexico. 

Hubert H. Humphrey, of Minnesota. 

Lawton Chiles, of Florida. 

Sam Nunn, of Georgia. 

Joseph R. Biden, Jr., of Delaware. 

Walter D. Huddleston, of Kentucky.- 

George D. Aiken, of Vermont. 

Jacob K. Javits, of New York. 

Paul J. Fannin, of Arizona. 

Charles H. Percy, of Illinois. 

Pete V. Domenici, of New Mexico. 
From the House of Representatives: 

Robert N. C. Nix, of Pennsylvania, Chairman. 

James C. Wright, Jr., of Texas, Acting Chairman. 

Henry B. Gonzalez, of Texas. 

Eligio de la Garza, of Texas. 

Abraham Kazen, Jr., of Texas. 

Morris K. Udall, of Arizona. 

Jerome R. Waldie, of California. 

Charles E. Wiggins, of California. 

Manuel Lujan, Jr., of New Mexico. 

Edward J. Derwinski, of Illinois. 

J. Herbert Burke, of Florida. 

John B. Conlan, of Arizona. 

Mexican Delegates 
From the Senate : 

Victor Manzanilla Schaffer, of Yucatan. 
Enrique Gonzalez Pedrero, of Tobasco. 
Oscar Flores Tapia, of Coahuila. 
Alejandro Carrillo Marcor, of Sonora. 
Ignacio Maciel Salcedo, of Jalisco. 
Francisco Aguilar Hernandez, of Morelos. 
Carlos Perez Camara, of Campeche. 
Florencio Salazar Martinez, of San Luis Potosi. 
Gilberto Suarez Torres, of Oaxaca. 
Agustin Ruiz Soto, of Durango. 
Samuel Terrazas Zozaya, of Veracruz. 
Jose Bruno del rio Cruz, of Tamaulipas. 
Francisco Luna Kan, of Yucatan. 

(56) 



57 

From the Chamber of Deputies: 

Roldolfo Echeverria Ruiz, of the Federal District. 

Carlos Madrazo Pintado, of the Federal District. 

Pindaro Uriostegui Miranda, of Guerrero. 

Alejandro Cerventes Delgado, of Guerrero. 

Celestino Salcedo Monteon, of Baja California. 

Federico Martinez Manaton, of Baja California. 

Juan Jose Hinojosa, of the Federal District. 

Antonio Martinez Baez, of Michoacan. 

Gabriel Legorreta Villarreal, of Tamaulipas. 

Maria Guadalupe Cruz Aranda, of Chiapas. 

Mariano Araiza Zayas, of the Federal District. 

Humberto Mateos Gomez, of the Federal District. 

Jorge Hernandez Garcia, of the Third District, State of Mexico. 

Concepcion Rivera Zenteno, of the Federal District. 
The Mexican delegation arrived for the fourteenth meeting of 
the Mexico-United States Interparliamentary Group meeting on 
May 13. The group formally convened the next day. Prior to the 
closing plenary session, on May 15, the two delegations placed wreaths 
at the statues of Benito Juarez and the Lincoln Memorial. At noon 
on the same day, President and Mrs. Nixon welcomed the two 
delegations at the White House. 

The work of the Conference was organized into two committees. 
The Committee on Political Affairs dealt with Bilateral issues: 
results of the foreign ministers meetings in Mexico, Colorado River 
salinity, energy, migratory workers, and Law of the Sea. The Com- 
mittee on Economic and Social Affairs covered the Charter of Eco- 
nomic Rights and Duties of States, bilateral trade issues, border is- 
sues, and tourism and other exchanges. 

At the conclusion of the formal meetings, the chairman of the 
two delegations issued a joint statement in which they reaffirmed 
the decision to continue the Interparliamentary meetings, expressed 
satisfaction with the "New Dialogue" initiated by the United States 
and Latin America at Tlatelolco, noted that finally a solution to the 
salinity of the Colorado River had been achieved, discussed the 
problems of energy, illegal aliens, and the Law of the Sea as they 
affected both countries, reaffirmed the value of the Charter of Economic 
Rights and Duties of the States, noted the importance of proper 
regulation of investors operating in foreign countries, supported 
consultation between Mexico and the United States prior to enact- 
ment of trade legislation, noted the urgency of curtailing traffic 
in dangerous drugs, and expressed confidence in the contribution 
of tourism and cultural exchanges to mutual understanding. 

Committee I — Political Affairs 

The committee on political affairs commenced its discussions 
with a brief review of United States foreign policy toward Latin 
America. Specifically, the Tlatelolco Conference, held February 
18-23, 1974, was mentioned and Secretary of State Kissinger's 
"new dialogue" was endorsed by both delegations. 

The development of greatest interest to both delegations was the 
August 30, 1973 agreement, formally referred to as Minute 242 of the 
International Boundary and Water Commission, which proposed a 
final and definitive solution to the salinity problem of the Colorado 



58 

River. Since this problem had plagued the two nations and had been 
discussed at many Interparliamentary meetings, the proposal was 
strongly endorsed by both delegations. The Mexican delegation 
expressed particular satisfaction with the opportunity to talk with 
U.S. senators and representatives at the Conference to learn the 
exact status of the pertinent legislation in the respective houses. 
(Congress took final action on H.R. 12165 on June 18, 1974. President 
Nixon signed the bill into law on June 24.) 

Regarding the question of illegal aliens, both delegations recog- 
nized the growing seriousness of the problem. The U.S. delegation 
cited statistics indicating over one million Mexican aliens in the 
United States had entered illegally, despite the fact that in 1973 
alone, 608,000 were apprehended and turned over to Mexican authori- 
ties. The Mexican delegation expressed concern over the treatment 
afforded the apprehended aliens and was assured by the U.S. delega- 
tion that mistreatment of these individuals was not tolerated by the 
U.S. Immigration and Naturalization Service. It was agreed that 
the delegations would establish a joint commission in an effort to 
resolve this problem and that in the interim, the rights of these 
aliens would be respected. 

The remainder of the committee discussions covered energy and 
the law of the sea. The two delegations reviewed their respective 
energy policies and lent attention to the task of mitigating the impact 
of the crisis on the two nations. In addition, they summarized the 
discussions which occurred at the law of the sea conference, (held 
in the summer of 1973 in Caracas, Venezuela) and both delegations 
expressed optimism that efforts toward reaching international agree- 
ment would be successful. 

Committee II — Economic and Social Affairs 

The discussions on economic and social affairs opened with the 
Mexican delegation's summary of national progress, since 1910, in 
the fields of agrarian reform, worker's rights, popular education, and 
natural resource development. The delegates noted the recent shift 
in the economy from an agricultural base to an industrial base — a 
shift which had been accompanied by a serious economic imbalance 
requiring deficit financing and a greater emphasis on exports to 
overcome the negative balance of trade. 

The U.S. delegation pointed out that Mexico was our leading cus- 
tomer in Latin America and our fifth largest in the world. The mem- 
bers added that the United States has been purchasing about 70 per- 
cent of Mexican exports while supplying about 60 percent of Mexican 
imports. It was noted that one of the major difficulties in assessing 
the extent of the Mexican balance of payments problem was the lack 
of reliable statistics. The U.S. delegation cited this absence of data 
along with recent Mexican laws regulating foreign investments as 
stumbling blocks to increasing foreign investment in Mexico. Moreover, 
while the Mexican delegation cited U.S. tariffs as a point of discussion, 
the U.S. delegates pointed out that these barriers were not specifi- 
cally directed at Mexico. The U.S. delegation also noted that the 
impact of the Mexican import licensings systems greatly hindered 
U.S. trade with Mexico. 

The U.S. delegation further suggested that Mexico had now reached 
a stage of economic development where it could take a less restrictive 



59 

stance with regard to imports. The U.S. members explained that the 
United States would be most cautious in regard to any trade liberal- 
ization because of United States concern for loss of jobs. The delegates 
added that this was reflected in our worldwide policy and was all the 
more salient vis a vis the recent oil embargo. The delegation also 
noted the recent favorable balance of trade enjoyed by the United 
States and indicated that the uncertainty of its permanence was 
another factor in not pursuing more liberal trade policies. Finally, the 
U.S. representatives pointed out that Mexico enjoyed an unusual ad- 
vantage within its total balance of payments with respect to tourism, 
which was a growing source of foreign exchange. 

The committee also discussed the problem of drug traffic over the 
border. The Mexican delegation noted that their enforcement pro- 
cedures had been stepped up in an effort to curtail this activity. With 
respect to these procedures, the U.S. members noted that there had 
been some difficulties for Americans in recovering stolen vehicles taken 
into Mexico as well as those held b} T Mexican authorities for infrac- 
tions of Mexican laws unrelated to the vehicles. 

During the committee discussions a number of other items were 
mentioned. Mexico noted that 3.2 million tourists visited Mexico in 
1973, almost a 10 percent increase over 1972. Of these, 87% came from 
the United States. Tourism generated $724.2 million in 1973 for 
Mexico, while Mexicans abroad spent onl} T $257.3. To encourage the 
flow of tourists, the Mexican delegation reported that a number of 
hotels had been constructed since 1962 and noted that many more 
were being planned or were underway. 

The two delegations also discussed the shortage of jet fuel. The 
Mexican delegation was especially concerned as this might reduce the 
number of tourists able to travel to Mexico. However, it was agreed 
that both countries were deeply concerned over the matter but that 
the United States certainly could not be held responsible for the cur- 
tailment of fuel or any resultant reduction in tourism revenues to 
Mexico. 

Both delegations were pleased to note the increase in cultural ex- 
changes which had involved students, sports and musical events, and 
sister-city agreements. The collaborative endeavors by both coun- 
tries in the physical sciences was also commended and the Mexican 
delegation expressed hope that future U.S. studies of Mexican sociol- 
ogy and political science might assume a collaborative nature. 



76-432 O - 76 - 5 



Fifteenth Meeting, Campeche, Mexico, March 26-31, 1975 

United States Delegates 

From the Senate: 

Mike Mansfield of Montana, Chairman. 

Stuart Symington of Missouri. 

Jennings Randolph of West Virginia. 

Vance Hartke of Indiana. 

Joseph M. Montoya of New Mexico. 

Walter D. Huddleston of Kentucky. 

Robert P. Griffin of Michigan. 

Charles H. Percy of Illinois. 

Paul Laxalt of Nevada. 
From the House of Representatives: 

James C. Wright of Texas, Acting Chairman. 

Herman Badillo of New York. 

Charles Wilson of Texas. 

John H. Rousselot of California. 

Tennyson Guyer of Ohio. 

Robert J. Lagomarsino of California. 

Mexican Delegates 
From the Senate: 

Victor Manzanilla SchafTer. 

Alejandro Carrillo Marcor. 

Aurora Ruvalcaba Gutierrez. 

Guillermo Morales Blumenkron. 

Gilberto Suarez Torres. 

Martin Luis Guzman. 

Francisco Aguilar Hernandez. 

Ramon Alcala Ferrara. 

Ignacio Maciel Salcedo. 

Carlos Perez Camara. 

Florencio Salazar Martinez. 
From the Chamber of Deputies: 

Luis Danton Rodriguez. 

Luis del Toro Calero. 

Manuel Ramos Gurrion. 

Gilberto Acosta Bernal. 

Ignacio Carrillo Carrillo. 

Abraham Talavera Lopez. 

Alejandro Sobarzo Loaiza. 

Mario Ruiz de Chavez. 

Carlos Machiavelo Martin del Campo. 

Horacio Labastida Mufioz. 

Fernando Estrada Samano. 

Jose Murat. 

(60) 



61 

Fedro Guillen Castanon. 
Luis Leon Aponte. 
Joaquin Canovas Puchades. 

The United States delegation arrived for the fifteenth meeting of 
the Mexico-United States Interparliamentary Group in Campeche, 
Mexico on March 26. The following morning, the delegates attended a 
flag raising ceremony followed by the formal convening of the meet- 
ings. Later that evening the delegates attended a wreath-laying 
ceremony and fireworks display at Campeche's Juarez Statue. The 
conference formally concluded on the morning of March 28 after which 
each member of the U.S. delegation was presented a key to the City of 
Campeche. The following day, the two delegations toured the coastal 
area south of Campeche by bus. 

Both delegations departed for Cancun International Airport on 
March 30 where they awaited the arrival of President Echeverria. 
Following the official inauguration of the airport, a luncheon was 
held in honor of the President, attended by both delegations. The 
U.S. delegation departed for Washington, D.C. on March 31. 

At the conclusion of the sessions, the heads of the delegations issued 
a joint statement which reaffirmed their respect for democratic prin- 
ciples; noted the numerous points of agreement between Mexico and 
the United States as compared to only a few disagreements; recognized 
the need for changes in Organization of American States and the Inter- 
American Treaty of Reciprocal Assistance, especially as their policies 
preserve sanctions on the Republic of Cuba ; agreed on the importance 
of the United Nations Conference on the Law of the Sea to establish 
international treaties; noted the importance of establishing a new 
international economic order in order to assist the development of 
nations and to preserve world peace; commended the actions of the 
United Nations to encourage world disarmament and to end discrimina- 
tion, colonialism, and the violations of human rights. The delegation 
chiefs also condemned the actions of multinational corporations which 
intervene in the domestic affairs of the countries in which they operate, 
indicated interest in extending the Generalized System of Preferences 
to all Latin American countries, supported tourism for both its 
economic and social benefits, encouraged continued cultural exchanges, 
and recognized the continued importance of drug traffic control. 

The work of the Group was divided into two main committees — 
Committee I, Political Affairs: (1) the Inter- American System, (2) 
Population and Development, (3) Law of the Sea, (4) Charter of 
Economic Rights and Duties of the States, (5) Strengthening the 
United Nations, (6) Multinational Corporations; and Committee II, 
Economic and Social Affairs: (1) the Trade Reform Act of 1974, 
(2) Balance of Payments, (3) Energy, (4) Tourism, (5) Narcotics, 
(6) Science and Technology. 

Committee I — Political Affairs 

During the course of discussion, both delegations agreed on the need 
for changes in the inter-American system. Especially, changes were 
sought in the Organization of American States and the Inter-American 
Treaty of Reciprocal Assistance. The U.S. delegation, in response to 
Mexican members' comments on the Latin American Economic System 
(SELA), voiced approval, provided it did not replace the OAS. With 
respect to Cuba, members of both delegations expressed hope that 



62 

there would be more consideration given to rescinding the OAS trade 
sanctions in effect against that country since 1964. 

With respect to population and development, all delegates stressed 
the inter-relationship of the issues. The Mexican delegation stated 
that the core issue was economic development and noted the disparity 
between the prices of exports from the developing countries and the 
prices of imports of manufactured goods from industrialized countries 
as a key problem. 

During the deliberations on the Law of the Sea, a Mexican delegate 
noted that in recent years the positions of the United States and 
Mexico had become considerably closer so that the two countries now 
agreed on most major points. 

The Mexican delegation voiced its disappointment that the United 
States did not support the Mexican-sponsored Charter of Economic 
Rights and Duties of the States during the 29th UN General Assem- 
bly, pointing out why, in its opinion, the Charter would have served 
the interests of a new international economic order. A member of the 
U.S. delegation indicated that President Echeverria's initiative in 
proposing the Charter had been applauded by the United States and 
that the United States concurred with the general principles of the 
Charter; however, the matters of foreign investment and producer 
cartels required further discussion before the Charter could expect full 
approval. 

A U.S. delegate, after outlining the World Bank's estimates of the 
very large private and public investment thought to be required by the 
developing nations in future years, indicated that, without modifica- 
tion, the Charter might discourage the capital needed by these 
countries. The delegate further pointed out that in private conversa- 
tions, certain OPEC country leaders who voted for the Charter 
indicated that they "went along" with the Group of 77, but were 
cautious as to their willingness to invest in development projects 
unless certain controversial provisions of the Charter were modified. 
An ad hoc committee of two delegates from each country was estab- 
lished to review differences on the Charter. 

Both delegations agreed it was their duty, and that of other coun- 
tries, to strengthen the United Nations. It was pointed out that in 
recent years many countries had used the organization as a political 
sounding board rather than as an instrument of international coopera- 
tion. Both delegations agreed that if this trend were allowed to 
continue, disillusionment would become greater and eventually the 
United Nations would cease to be viable. 

Regarding multinational corporations, Mexico's delegates reaffirmed 
their Government's position that foreign investment capital was 
welcome, providing that it complements, rather than displaces, local 
capital, that it makes a positive contribution to the country's economic 
development, and that it abides by national laws. The U.S. members 
responded by noting that "corporations which are not good citizens 
abroad are frequently not good citizens at home." 

Committee II — Economic and Social Affairs 

The discussion on economic and social affairs was opened with 
comments by a Mexican delegate on the recently passed U.S. Trade 
Act of 1974. The most controversial aspect of this law, the delegate 
noted, was the provision denying all members of the Organization of 



63 

Petroleum Exporting Countries (OPEC) the benefits of the proposed 
"Generalized System of Preferences" (GSP). Mexico, although not a 
member of OPEC and a beneficial of the legislation, felt obligated 
to point out, as had other Latin American countries, that this restric- 
tion was discriminatory toward Ecuador and Venezuela, which, though 
OPEC members, did not participate in the oil embargo of 1973. 

In general, Mexico expressed satisfaction with the Ford administra- 
tion's decision to grant all other Latin American countries GSP 
benefits. Another Mexican delegate reiterated a point made in previous 
meetings, that a stabilization of commodity prices was crucial to the 
economic development of Mexico and other Latin American countries. 
A U.S. delegate expressed the view that because of the recent inflation 
of world commodity prices, along with the current recession and 
unemployment in the United States, the stabilization of commodity 
prices could be achieved only through international agreements. 
Another U.S. delegate suggested that reform in the area of monetary 
exchange was desirable to minimize the fluctuations brought about by 
the system of "floating" exchange rates. 

A Mexican delegate noted that Section 106 of the Trade Reform 
Act provided a framework for the negotiations of multilateral agree- 
ments between producer and consumer nations. Such agreements 
could result in a lessening of restrictions which were inhibiting the 
exchange of basic products and adversely affecting Mexico's balance 
of payments. Again, the Mexican delegates expressed concern that 
Title V of the Act, though not applicable at the time, might restrict 
Mexico's freedom of choice to join OPEC in the future. 

With respect to Mexico's balance of payments situation, the dis- 
cussions of both delegations focused on specific import restrictions and 
prohibitions. A Mexican delegate urged that the United States enact 
legislation which would equalize tariffs throughout the year and thus 
avoid the seasonal fluctuations which were disruptive to Mexican 
export production. Moreover, the Mexican delegates argued that the 
twenty year ban on the importation of avocados be rescinded since the 
plant disease at one time infecting them had been eradicated for some 
time. Finally, the Mexican delegation pointed out that since Mexico 
imports nearly 50 percent of its farm inputs (e.g. farm machinery, 
fungicides, and fertilizers) from the United States, increased tariffs on 
selected Mexican agricultural goods were inequitable. 

A U.S. delegate responded that this issue was not one-sided and that 
the impact of Mexico's import protection system on U.S. suppliers was 
significant. For instance, lemons, avocados, and wine produced in 
California had been consistently excluded from the Mexican market. 
Furthermore, the Mexican import licensing system was another ob- 
stacle to U.S. exporters. The U.S. delegate finally noted that while an 
increase in the trade of agricultural products was desirable, it would 
have to be on a reciprocal basis. 

In reference to energy, both delegations noted the dramatic increase 
in oil exploration and production which had occurred in Mexico in re- 
cent years. As a result of new oil fields discovered in 1972, Mexico 
faced the prospect of doubling or even tripling its oil reserves, allowing 
Mexico to become self-sufficient in oil and to become an oil exporter. 



64 

The Mexican delegation pointed out, however, that oil production 
would be subject to a number of national guidelines including adher- 
ence to prices set by OPEC (although membership was not antici- 
pated), greater emphasis on Mexican exportation of refined oil and 
petrochemical products, rather than on the export of crude oil, and a 
commitment to a balanced industrialization of the country rather than 
dependence on oil exports. 

In contrast, the U.S. delegates pointed out that the United States 
still imported 40 percent of its oil and would use leverage, including the 
Trade Reform Act, to encourage a stabilization of oil prices. The U.S. 
delegation also suggested that while Mexico was sufficient in oil, the 
United States enjoyed a technological edge. He stressed the potential 
advantages to Mexico in exchanging oil for technology to the mutual 
benefit of both countries. 

The two delegations also discussed tourism, the Mexican delegation 
pointing out the continued importance of tourism to the Mexican 
economy. A U.S. delegate addressed the group on the subject since he 
had encouraged the growth of tourism in his home state. He indicated 
that since group tours tend to be the most remunerative, much ad- 
vertising could be geared to these groups with tremendous success. 
The two delegations agreed that the availability of air transport was 
crucial. The Mexican delegation observed that the U.S. principle of 
unrestricted competition had resulted in U.S. control of about 70 
percent of all air traffic between the two countries. The U.S. delegation 
responded, noting the difficult time faced by all U.S. carriers at the 
time and pointing out that U.S. airfields charged lower landing fees to 
foreign planes than to its own, a practice which has worked to the dis- 
advantage of U.S. carriers. 

In the field of narcotics, both delegations stressed joint coopera- 
tion in trying to eradicate this trade. The U.S. delegation expressed 
its appreciation for the help of the Mexican Government since na- 
tionals of the United States are the major consumers of these illicit 
substances. 

Finally, both delegations realized the importance of continuing 
scientific and technological exchanges between the two countries. 






Sixteenth Meeting, Atlanta, Georgia, February 25-29, 1976 

United States Delegates 

From the Senate : 

Mike Mansfield of Montana, Chairman. 

Joseph M. Montoya of New Mexico. 

Robert Morgan of North Carolina. 

John A. Durkin of New Hampshire. 
From the House of Representatives: 

E (Kika) de la Garza of Texas, Chairman. 

Lester L. Wolff of New York. 

Jerome A. Ambro of New York. 

Manuel Lujan, Jr., of New Mexico. 

John H. Rousselot of California. 

Clair W. Burgener of California. 

Robert J. Lagomarsino of California. 

Benjamin A. Gilman of New York. 

Mexican Delegates 
From the Senate: 

Ramon Alcala Ferrera of Campeche. 

Victor Manzanilla Schaffer of Yucatan. 

Aurora Ruvalcaba Gutierrez of Colima. 

Enrique Gonzalez Pedrero of Tabasco. 

Carlos Perez Camara. 

Francisco Aguilar Hernandez of Morelos. 

Guillermo Morales Blumenkron of Puebla. 

Ignacio Maciel Salcedo of Jalisco. 

Edgar Robledo Santiago of Chiapas. 

German Corona del Rosal of Hidalgo. 

Gilberto Suarez Torres of Oaxaca. 

Jose Bruno del Rio (Alternate). 

Vincente Juarez Carro (Alternate). 
From the Chamber of Deputies: 

Alejandro Sobarzo Loaiza of Sonora. 

Antonio Martinez Baez of Michaocan. 

Rogelio Garcia Gonzalez of Veracruz. 

Francisco Javier Gutierrez Villarreal of Nuevo Leon. 

Jose de Jesus Martinez Gil of the Federal District. 

Luis Adolfo Santibanez Belmont of the Federal District. 

Mario Ruiz de Chavez Garcia of the State of Mexico. 

Pedro Guillen Castanon of Chiapas. 

Antonio Carrillo Huacuja of Baja California. 

Teodoro Carrasco Palacios of Oaxaca. 

Jose Milrat (Alternate). 

(65) 



66 

The Mexican delegation arrived at Andrews Air Force Base on 
February 25, where it was received by members of the U.S. delegation. 
Both delegations then proceeded to the White House where President 
Ford delivered a brief address after an informal reception. Later that 
same afternoon, both delegations departed for Atlanta, Georgia, where 
they proceeded to the Regency Hyatt Hotel, the location of the 
official conference. 

The formal convening of the Group took place the next morning 
with welcoming remarks by the Honorable George Busbee, Governor 
of Georgia, U.S. Representative E. (Kika) de la Garza, and Deputy 
Rodriguez, of the Mexican delegation. The sessions concluded on the 
morning of February 27 with closing remarks by Senator Mike Mans- 
field, Chairman of the U.S. Senate delegation, and Senator Enrique 
Olivares Santana, Chairman of the Mexican delegation. That evening 
the delegates attended a dinner and special Bicentennial performance 
in Atlanta. 

The next morning, both delegations flew to Denver, Colorado, 
toured the city, and took a bus trip to Vail where a final dinner was 
held. On February 29, the members of the U.S. delegation returned to 
Washington, D.C. 

At the conclusion of the meeting, the chairmen of the respective 
delegations issued a joint statement which committed the delegations 
to working for a better understanding between the peoples whom 
they represent, reiterated their confidence in the usefulness of the 
Interparliamentary meetings, and expressed views on the points which 
were discussed: The heads of the delegations voiced support of the 
United Nations, reiterated their support for the principle of non- 
intervention, and appealed for reform of the Organization of American 
States; expressed satisfaction as to the cooperative measures taken by 
both countries on the issue of illicit narcotics, recommended a re- 
doubling of efforts to reach agreement on all outstanding Law of the 
Sea Issues, and pointed out that "Protection of Human Rights" was 
a main concern of the delegations. 

The joint statement also noted that the delegations expressed re- 
newed interest in the construction of a nuclear desalinization plant in 
Baja California, expressed concern over worldwide inflation and recog- 
nized the necessity of promoting and expanding international trade and 
increasing the flow of U.S. investment in Mexico. Members of the U.S. 
delegation agreed to discuss with the Executive Branch the desirability 
of implementing provisions of the Charter of the Economic Rights and 
Duties of States favored by both governments. 

The statement concluded by pointing out that the delegations agreed 
that a liberalization of trade policies was necessary as were proposals to 
strengthen regional economic integration. Both delegations expressed 
the hope that their respective governments would fully consider the 
problem of undocumented migratory workers, and recognized the 
important role played by education, science, and culture in the im- 
provement of human, political, and social relations among all peoples. 

The work of the Conference was organized into two Committees: 
Political Affairs and Economic and Social Affairs. 

Committee I — Political Affairs 

During the committee's discussions on bilateral relations it was 
agreed that generally, Mexico-United States relations were good if not 



67 

excellent. At a broader level, however, the Mexican delegates pointed 
out considerable differences of opinion which reflect the global political, 
military, and economic interests of the United States. 

After considering Cuban intervention in Angola, the Mexican dele- 
gation reaffirmed the country's traditional opposition to intervention 
in the internal affairs of one country by another. 

The Organization of American States and the proposed amendment 
to the Rio Treaty were reviewed in detail by the Mexican delegation 
during the committee meeting. This review demonstrated the con- 
siderable lack of consensus among the OAS countries on such matters 
as ideological pluralism, sovereignty over natural resources, and collec- 
tive economic security. Specifically, the Mexican delegates affirmed 
their country's conviction that collective economic security is vital to 
the peace and well being of the hemisphere. Regarding the proposed 
amendments to the Rio Treaty, the U.S. delegates expressed some 
reservations, whereas the Mexican delegation explained that Mexico 
regarded the treaty as an alliance for cooperation rather than a 
military pact. 

In reference to narcotics control, discussants expressed the view 
that major efforts were being undertaken by both countries. Both 
delegations praised President Echeverria's proposal to establish 
parallel national commissions to oversee the drug traffic curtailment 
efforts. 

The committee's consideration of the Law of the Sea focused on 
efforts within the United Nations to obtain a comprehensive law of 
the sea agreement, and on national legislation creating 200-mile 
fishery or economic zones. Both delegations expressed hope that the 
United Nations would complete its work on these issues this year. 

The subject of human rights elicited concern from U.S. delegates 
regarding the treatment of Americans in jail in Mexico, and from the 
Mexican delegation over the detention of Mexican aliens in the United 
States. Both delegations agreed that all nations could do better in 
implementing the U.N. Declaration on Human Rights. 

Committee II — Economic and Social Affairs 

The first topic discussed was inflation and development. Com- 
menting on worldwide inflation and the adverse effects on Mexico's 
balance of payments when the costs of manufactured goods rise, the 
Mexican Chairman emphasized the importance of a more equitable 
international economic system to reduce the impact of recessions in 
the developed countries on the less developed ones. This world eco- 
mic situation heightened the U.S. appreciation for the interdependence 
of nations, an appreciation demonstrated by the recent, major U.S. 
contribution to the International Monetary Fund (IMF). Attention 
was also called to Secretary Kissinger's address to the Seventh Special 
Session of the U.N. General Assembly in September 1975, which pro- 
posed various measures to improve the economies of developing 
countries. 

On bilateral exchange of goods and services, a U.S. delegate sug- 
gested the possibility of negotiating long-term agreements whereby 
Mexico would provide crude oil exports to the United States of certain 
key Mexican products. The Mexican delegation stated that although 
their recent oil discoveries did not put them on the scale with the 
Middle East, they expected exports of crude oil to increase signifi- 
cantly in the future. 



es 

Considerable discussion was also devoted to Mexico's "twin plants" 
Border Industry Program which was established in 1965 to alleviate 
high unemployment along the border. The Mexican delegation pointed 
out that the activities of these 550 plants had slowed by January 1975 
but a U.S. delegate noted that this was a result of the recession, in the 
United States and higher costs in Mexico. 

In his opening statement, the Mexican Chairman observed that the 
Charter of Economic Rights and Duties of States, originally proposed 
by President Echeverria, had been adopted by the United Nations 
on December 12, 1974. Essentially, the charter removed the concept 
of economic cooperation from good will and gave it a standing in inter- 
national law. The U.S. delegation responded, noting that the United 
States and other industrialized countries, had objected only to certain 
provisions regarding foreign investment, expropriation, primary com- 
modities, producer cartels, indexation of prices and similar provisions. 
Because certain amendments had not been accepted, universal ad- 
herence to the Charter had not been established. At the request of the 
Mexican delegation, members of the U.S. delegation in Committee II 
agreed to discuss the Charter with officials in the U.S. executive 
branch. 

Tourism was mentioned by the Mexican delegation as an industry 
which continues to be important to the Mexican economy. The recent 
decline of American tourists and tourists receipts was regretted, 
although it was understood that this was a consequence of worsening 
economic conditions in the United States. 

The Mexican delegation noted the efforts to stimulate American 
interest in travel to Mexico and the establishment of centers to prepare 
Mexicans for employment in the tourist industry. An American dele- 
gate noted that some of the decline in U.S. tourists to Mexico could 
be attributed to Mexico's support of the so-called "Zionism" resolu- 
tion in the United Nations. Moreover, he cited the lack of competitive 
air fares as another deterrent to tourists. On the other hand, the 
Mexican decision to rescind the 15 percent restaurant tax for foreign 
visitors was a welcome development. Finally, the Mexicans again sug- 
gested that the $100 customs exemption for returning U.S. residents 
be increased, especially in view of recent inflationary factors. 

The Mexican delegates expressed dissatisfaction with the U.S. 
Trade Act of 1974. Particularly, the delegates noted that restricting 
the application of the General System of Tariff Preferences would 
work to the detriment of Mexican exports since textiles, footwear, 
electronic parts, steel, and glass were exempted from coverage. The 
Mexican delegates also dealt with certain nontariff restrictions, such 
as import quotas, which severely curtail Mexican exports of cotton 
and tomatoes. 

The U.S. delegates, observed that trade restrictions were two-sided, 
citing lemon oil as well as other deciduous fruits as items which have 
long been excluded from the Mexican market, even though they do 
not compete with Mexican production. In 1974, moreover, American- 
produced beef, dairy products, and quarterhorses were subjected to 
high tariff rates, until somewhat modified in 1975. The U.S. delegation 
also cited the Mexican system of licensing as another obstacle to free 
trade as well as the de facto tariffs implied by the Mexican pricing 
structure. In conclusion, the U.S. delegation stated that an easing of 
trade regulations was unlikely unless reciprocated by the Mexicans. 



69 

Responding to Mexican criticisms, the U.S. delegation noted that 
Mexico in particular, and Latin America in general, could expect 
substantial benefits from the new GSP provision of the trade act. 

Efforts to promote a common Latin American economic system 
(SELA) were outlined in a paper by a Mexican delegate, noting that 
Mexico had led a one year initiative before the adoption of the Charter 
in October 1975, by twenty-three Latin American countries, including 
Cuba. Members of the U.S. delegation welcomed the assurance that 
SELA was intended to enhance cooperation, not divisiveness, among 
all nations of the hemisphere. 

In discussions on migratory workers, the Mexican delegate recalled 
that the Organization of American States (OAS), at its tenth regular 
meeting, had adopted the term "non-documented migratory worker" 
as preferable to the terms commonly used. The U.S. delegates agreed 
that the new term was to be commended since it tended to reaffirm 
the principle of work as a fundamental right. The U.S. delegation 
pointed out, contrary to popular belief, that two-thirds of the migra- 
tory work force was engaged in non-agricultural pursuits. 

Both delegations cited the October 1974 meeting between President 
Echeverria and President Ford as a positive step on this issue. At the 
meeting, President Echeverria noted that a long term solution to the 
problem depended upon the improvement of economic conditions in 
Mexico, noting that Mexicans emigrated because of domestic popula- 
tion pressures, the relative unproductiveness of Mexican agriculture, 
and higher salaries in the United States. Moreover, he noted that this 
emigration often occurred at Mexico's expense through the loss of 
better qualified and more productive Mexican workers to U.S. 
industrial centers. 

The U.S. delegation, though in agreement with the above observa- 
tions over the long run, felt that the establishment of a new "Bracero" 
program would be a reasonable temporary solution. While Senators 
from agricultural states favored this approach, it was strongly opposed 
by U.S. organized labor. It was suggested that the bracero issue be 
discussed by labor representatives of Mexico and the United States 
to encourage understanding of the issues involved. 

Finally, the U.S. delegation noted that the Rodino bill, which would 
impose criminal penalties for the hiring of illegal aliens, had passed 
the House of Representatives on two different occasions and that the 
United States Supreme Court had upheld a similar California state 
law. It was agreed that the adoption of such laws would discourage 
the hiring of Mexicans and or Mexican-Americans especially in doubt- 
ful or borderline cases. 

In reference to education, the Mexican delegation stressed the 
importance of learning the history of neighboring countries to improve 
social and political relations. In particular, it was suggested that 
bilingual education be encouraged and that similar ideals and historical 
parallels of Mexico and the United States be pointed out to students. 
The establishment of the Third World University, which was to open 
soon pursuant to a UNESCO declaration, was discussed, with U.S. 
delegates expressing considerable interest. The United States Chair- 
man observed that one problem in the United States was the lack of 
equal educational opportunities for Mexican-Americans. For instance, 
despite a shortage of doctors in the United States, degrees from 
Mexican institutions, especially in medicine and dentistry, were still 



70 

not being recognized in the United States. Both delegations agreed 
that student and technical exchange programs should be encouraged. 

The U.S. delegates also cited recent developments in solar energy 
which might prove applicable to the desalinization of water, a problem 
which affects both Mexico and the United States. Responding to the 
U.S. comments on the northward flow of sewage from Mexicali in 
Baja California to San Diego, California, the Mexican delegates 
stated that the Mexican Government had assumed full responsibility 
for the problem and had taken some initial corrective steps which 
had been successful. 

At the close, the respective Chairmen of the two delegations ex- 
pressed full agreement on the usefulness of the Interparliamentary 
mechanism for increasing mutual understanding of complex problems 
and respect for the positions of both countries in international affairs. 



APPENDIX 

1. Authorization of Mexico-U.S. Interparliamentary Group — Text of 

Public Law 86-420. 

2. Chamizal Agreement 

3. Treaty Resolving Boundary Differences 

4. 1944 Water Treaty 

5. Colorado River Salinity Agreement 

6. Colorado River Basin Salinity Control Act — Text of Public Law 

93-320. 



1. Public Law S6-420, 86th Congress, H.J. Res. 283, April 9, 1960 

JOINT RESOLUTION 

To authorize participation by the United States in parliamentary conferences 

with Mexico. 

Resolved by the Senate and House oj Representatives oj the United 
States oj America in Congress assembled That not to exceed twenty- 
four Members of Congress shall be appointed to meet jointly and at 
least annually with representatives of the Chamber of Deputies and 
Chamber of Senators of the Mexican Congress for discussion of com- 
mon problems in the interests of relations between the United States 
and Mexico. Of the Members of the Congress to be appointed for 
the purposes of this resolution (hereinafter designated as the United 
States group) half shall be appointed by the Speaker of the Hou^e 
from Members of the House (not less than four of whom shall be 
from the Foreign Affairs Committee), and half shall be appointed 
by the President of the Senate from Members of the Senate (not 
less than four of whom shall be from the Foreign Relations Com- 
mittee). Such appointments shall be for the period of each meeting 
of the Mexico-United States Interparliamentary group except for 
the four members of the Foreign Affairs Committee, and the four 
members of the Foreign Relations Committee, whose appointments 
shall be for the duration of each Congress. 

Sec. 2. An appropriation of $30,000 annually is authorized, $15,000 
of which shall be for the House delegation and $15,000 for the Senate 
delegation, or so much thereof as may be necessary, to assist in meeting 
the expenses of the United States group of the Mexico-United States 
Interparliamentary group for each fiscal year for which an appro- 
priation is made, the House and Senate portions of such appropriation 
to be disbursed on vouchers to be approved by the Chairman of the 
House delegation and the Chairman of the Senate delegation, 
respectively. 

Sec. 3. The United States group of the Mexico-United States 
Interparliamentary group shall submit to the Congress a report for 
each fiscal year for which an appropriation is made including its 
expenditures under such appropriation. 

Sec. 4. The certificate of the Chairman of the House delegation or 
the Senate delegation of the Mexico-United States Interparliamentary 
group shall hereafter be final and conclusive upon the accounting 
officers in the auditing of the accounts of the United States group of 
the Mexico-United States Interparliamentary group. 

Approved April 9, 1960. 

(73) 



2. Coxvextiox Between the United States of America axd the 
United Mexican States for the Solution of the Problem 
of the chamizal 

The United States of America and the United Mexican States: 

Animated by the spirit of good neighborliness which has made 
possible the amicable solution of various problems which have arisen 
between them; 

Desiring to arrive at a complete solution of the problem concerning 
El Chamizal, an area of land situated to the north of the Rio Grande, 
in the El Paso-Ciudad Juarez region; 

Considering that the recommendations of the Department of State 
of the United States and the Ministry of Foreign Relations of Mexico 
of July 17, 1963, have been approved by the Presidents of the two 
Republics; 

Desiring to give effect to the 1911 arbitration award in today's 
circumstances and in keeping with the joint communique of the 
Presidents of the United States and of Mexico issued on June 30, 
1962; and 

Convinced of the need for continuing the program of rectification 
and stabilization of the Rio Grande which has been carried out under 
the terms of the Convention of February 1, 1933, by improving the 
channel in the El Paso-Ciudad Juarez region, 

Have resolved to conclude a Convention and for this purpose have 
named as their Plenipotentiaries: 

The President of the United States of America, Thomas C. Mann, 
Ambassador of the United States of America to Mexico, and 

The President of the United Mexican States, Manuel Tello, Secre- 
tary for Foreign Relations, 

Who, having communicated to each other their respective Full 
Powers, found to be in good and due form, have agreed as follows: 

ARTICLE 1 

In the El Paso-Ciudad Juarez sector, the Rio Grande shall be 
relocated into a new channel in accordance with the engineering 
plan recommended in Minute No. 214 on the International Boundary 
and Water Commission, United States and Mexico. Authentic copies 
of the Minute and of the map attached thereto, on which the new 
channel is shown, are annexed to this Convention and made a part 
hereof. 

ARTICLE 2 

The river channel shall be relocated so as to transfer from the 
north to the south of the Rio Grande a tract of 823.50 acres composed 
of 366.00 acres in the Chamizal tract, 193. 16 acres in the southern 
part of Cordova Island, and 264.34 acres to the east of Cordova 
Island. A tract of 193.16 acres in the northern part of Cordova Island 
will remain to the north of the river. 

(75) 



76-432 O - 76 



76 

ARTICLE 3 

The center line of the new river channel shall be the international 
boundary. The lands that, as a result of the relocation of the river 
channel, shall be to the north of the center line of the new channel 
shall be the territory of the United States of America and the lands 
that shall be to the south of the center line of the new channel shall 
be the territory of the United Mexican States. 

ARTICLE 4 

No payments will be made, as between the two Governments, for 
the value of the lands that pass from one country to the other as a 
result of the relocation of the international boundary. The lands 
that, upon relocation of the international boundary, pass from one 
country to the other shall pass to the respective Governments in 
absolute ownership, free of any private titles or encumbrances of 
any kind. 

ARTICLE 5 

The Government of Mexico shall convey to the Banco Nacional 
Hipotccario Urbano y de Obras Publicas, S.A., titles to the properties 
comprised of the structures which pass intact to Mexico and the lands 
on which they stand. The Bank shall pay the Government of Mexico 
for the value of the lands on which such structures are situated and 
the Government of the United States for the estimated value to 
Mexico of the said structures. 

ARTICLE 6 

After this Convention has entered into force and the necessary 
legislation has been enacted for carrving it out, the two Governments 
shall, on the basis of a recommendation by the International Boundary 
and Water Commission, determine the period of time appropriate for 
the Government of the United States to complete the following: 

(a) The acquisition, in conformity with its laws, of the lands 
to be transferred to Mexico and for the rights of way for that 
portion of the new river channel in the territory of the United 
States; 

(b) The orderly evacuation of the occupants of the lands 
referred to in paragraph (a). 

ARTICLE 7 

As soon as the operations provided in the preceding article have 
been completed, and the payment made by the Banco Nacional 
Hipotccario Urbano y de Obras Publicas, S.A., to the Government of 
the United States as provided in Article 5, the Government of the 
United States shall so inform the Government of Mexico. The Inter- 
national Boundary and Water Commission shall then proceed to 
demarcate the new international boundary, recording the demarcation 
in a Minute. The relocation of the international boundary and the 
transfer of lands provided for in this ( invention shall take place upon 
express approval of that Minute by both Governments in accordance 
with the procedure established in the second paragraph of Article 25 
of the Treaty of February 3, 1944. 






77 

ARTICLE 8 

The costs of constructing the new river channel shall be borne in 
equal parts by the two Governments. However, each Government 
shall bear the costs of compensation for the value of the structures or 
improvements which must be destroyed, within the territory under its 
jurisdiction prior to the relocation of the international boundary, in 
the process of constructing the new channel. 

ARTICLE 9 

The International Boundary and Water Commission is charged with 
the relocation of the river channel, the construction of the bridges 
herein provided for, and the maintenance, preservation and improve- 
ment of the new channel. The Commission's jurisdiction and respon- 
sibilities, set forth in Article XI of the \9M Convention for the 
maintenance and preservation of the Rio Grande Rectification 
Project, are extended upstream from that part of the river included in 
the Project to the point where the Rio Grande meets the land boundary 
between the two countries. 

ARTICLE 10 

The six existing bridges shall, as a part of the relocation of the river 
channel, be replaced by new bridges. The cost of constructing the new 
bridges shall be borne in equal parts by the two Governments. The 
bridges which replace those on Stanton-Lerdo and Santa Fe-Juarez 
streets shall be located on the same streets. The location of the bridge 
or bridges which replace the two Cordova Island bridges shall be 
determined by the International Boundary and Water Commission. 
The agreements now in force which relate to the four existing bridges 
between El Paso and Ciudad Juarez shall apply to the new inter- 
national bridges which replace them. The international bridge or 
bridges which replace the two Cordova Island bridges shall be toll free 
unless both Governments agree to the contrary. 

ARTICLE 11 

The relocation of the international boundary and the transfer of 
portions of territory resulting therefrom shall not affect in any way: 

(a) The legal status, with respect to citizenship laws, of those 
persons who are present or former residents of the portions of ter- 
ritory transferred ; 

(b) The jurisdiction over legal proceedings of either a civil or 
criminal character which are pending at the time of, or which were 
decided prior to, such relocation; 

(c) The jurisdiction over acts or omissions occurring within or 
with respect to the said portions of territory prior to their transfer; 

(d) The law or Laws applicable to the acts or omissions referred to 
in paragraph (c). 

ARTICLE 12 

The present Convention shall be ratified and the instruments of 

ratification shall be exchanged at Mexico City as soon as possible. 



78 

The present Convention shall enter into force upon the exchange of 
instruments of ratification. 

Done at Mexico City the twenty -ninth day of August, nineteen 
sixty three, in the English and Spanish languages, each text being 
equally authentic. 

For the Government of the United States of America, 

Thomas C. Mann [seal] 

For the Government of the United Mexican States, 

Manuel Tello [seal] 

Annexes 

Authentic copies of Minute 214 of the International Boundary and 
Water Commission, United States and Mexico, and of the map 
attached thereto. 

International Boundary and Water Commission 
United States and Mexico 

Ciudad Juarez, Chihuahua, 

August 28, 1963. 

ENGINEERING CONSIDERATIONS RELATING TO RELOCATION OF THE 
RIO GRANDE AT EL PASO, TEXAS, AND CIUDAD JUAREZ, CHIHUAHUA 

The Commission met at the offices of the Mexican Section, at 
Ciudad Juarez, Chihuahua, on August 28, 1963 at 10:00 a.m., to 
consider the engineering criteria and plans required to put into effect 
the joint recommendations for relocation of the channel of the Rio 
Grande at El Paso-Ciudad Juarez, referred to in the Memoranda of 
July 17, 1963 entitled "Recommendations to the Presidents of the 
United States and of Mexico by the Department of State and the 
Ministry of Foreign Relations for a Complete Solution of the Chamizal 
Problem." 

The Commissioners reviewed the engineering aspects of the new 
channel of the river recommended in the Memoranda under reference, 
and the studies and computations which, under instructions from their 
respective Governments, they made of those aspects during the prepa- 
ration of the Memoranda. They reviewed the ' 'Preliminary Plan, 
Relocation of Rio Grande, El Paso, Texas-Ciudad Juarez, Chi- 
huahua", which is attached to this Minute as an Exhibit and forms 
part hereof, as well as the engineering studies and criteria on which it 
is based and the preliminary cost estimates of the new channel and 
of the bridges which are to replace those presently in service. 

They noted that the centerline of the proposed new channel would 
diverge from the centerline of the present channel at point "A" 
shown on the Exhibit. Beginning at that point, the centerline is 
described as follows, with distances approximate: It would be aligned 
easterly along a curve of 2,300-foot radius and 0.44 mile in length, 
and a tangent of 0.62 mile, approximately parallel to the present 
channel and from 600 to 900 feet to the north of it; thence northeaster- 
ly along a curve of 1,640-foot radius and 0.32 mile in length, and a 



tangent of 0.22 mile; thence easterly along a curve 2,080 feet in 
radius and 0.35 mile in length and a tangent of 0.62 mile, crossing 
the west boundary of Cordova Island at a point 200 feet to the 
south of Monument No. 3 and approximately 1,000 feet to the south 
of the north boundary of said Island and 3,500 feet to the north 
of the present channel of the river; the line would continue to the 
southeast along a curve 1,910 feet in radius and 0.38 mile in length, 
which would cross the east boundary of Cordova Island 330 feet to 
the east of Monument No. 13 and thence also southeasterly along a 
tangent 0.82 mile; thence easterly along a curve of 5,730 feet in radius 
and 0.53 mile in length to connect with the present channel. The 
total length of the new channel would be approximately 4.3 miles. 

The Commissioners found that the hydrologic studies, together 
with the consideration that the business districts of the two cities 
require a high degree of flood protection, support the criterion that 
the new river channel should be designed to carry a flood of 18,000 
cubic feet per second with 3.3 feet of freeboard, as shown on the 
preliminary plan. They found that the proposed alignment of the 
new concrete-lined channel would be free of abrupt turns which 
might cause a significant rise in flood stages; that notwithstanding 
the fact that the new channel would have a greater length and curva- 
ture than the present channel, water elevations for the design flood 
would be lower in the new channel because of reduction in friction 
losses due to its concrete lining; that the lined channel requires 
considerably less width of right-of-way through the high-cost urban 
areas, with substantial savings in costs of land and improvements 
for right-of-way and in construction of new bridges; and that the 
preliminary plan also provides for inlet works to allow entrance of 
storm drainage, and for check structures in the new channel to be 
able to provide a water depth of six feet or more. 

The two Commissioners noted that the relocation of the Rio 
Grande at El Paso-Citidad Juarez requires approval of a Convention 
by the two Governments. 

The Commission then adopted the following resolution, subject to 
the approval of the two Governments: 

A. The Commission finds engineeringly sound the new location of 
the river at El Paso-Ciudad Juarez as recommended, and as shown on 
the Exhibit, and approves the preliminary plan and cost estimates 
shown thereon, subject to such modifications as the Commission may 
agree upon in final design and construction. 

B. The Commission specifically approves the following findings of 
the preliminary plan : 

(1) The precise areas which would be affected by relocation 
of the river, which in the aforementioned Memoranda and the 
maps attached thereto are given approximately to the nearest 
acre and hectare, are as follow-: South of the ceuterline of the 
relocated channel and north of the present channel of the Rio 
Grande there would be a tract of 823.50 acres comprised of 
366.00 acres in the Chamizal Tract, 193.16 acres in the southerly 
part of Cordova Island, and 264.34 acres to the east of the 
Island. North of the ceuterline of the relocated channel would 
be a tract of 193.16 acre- which presently is the northerly part 
of Cordova [sland. 



80 

(2) The new channel of the Rio Grande as shown on the 
Exhibit would be concrete-lined, with cross-section as narrow 
as compatible with the capacity required to carry the design 
flood. 

(3) The new channel would provide a high degree of flood 
protection and a stable channel which could be properly operated 
and maintained by the two Governments through their respective 
Sections of the Commission. The new lined channel would 
provide a stable international boundary, would permit more 
effective sanitary control of the river, and would contribute to 
improvement and beautification of the border between the two 
countries at El Paso-Ciudad Juarez. 

C. The Commission recommends the following joint measures by 
the two Governments to implement the plan: 

(1) That when the Convention relating to the relocation of 
the river comes into force, the International Boundary and 
Water Commission: 

(a) Make the necessary topographic surveys for demarca- 
tion of the new boundary. 

(b) Prepare detail plans and perform all other engineering 
work preliminary to and preparatory for relocation of the 
river as may be required by the Convention. 

(c) Undertake, at the earliest practicable date, the con- 
struction of the new bridges required to replace the six 
existing bridges and such portions of the new river channel 
as might be feasible and desirable as determined by the 
Commission. The bridge or bridges required to replace the 
two existing Cordova Island bridges shall be located as 
determined by the Commission, and each Section of the 
Commission shall assume responsibility for operation and 
maintenance of the portion of such bridge or bridges in its 
country, with the understanding that each Section may 
make arrangements if deemed necessary or desirable with 
local authorities of its country for operation and maintenance 
of its part of such bridge or bridges or for repayment of costs 
of said operation and maintenance. 

(2) That when such prerequisite measures as are set forth in 
the Convention have been effected : 

(a) Each Government, in the territory under its jurisdic- 
tion, remove all structures from the right-of-way for the 
new channel as delineated by the Commission. 

(b) The Commission demarcate the new boundary line. 

(c) The Commission, after the two Governments have 
approved the new boundary line, proceed to complete the 
relocation of the river channel and all related engineering 
operations. 

D. The Commission recommends that the equal division between 
the two countries of total costs of constructing the new channel and 
bridges, as recommended in the Memoranda of July 17, 1963, be 
effected by each Government performing, through its Section of the 
Commission, a portion of the construction work corresponding to one- 
half of the total cost. 



■ A L ;"■•>>■ vP' -• A S" '. ."'-' /3^ 



■V.\ 






* 



: — ■ - ■■-.■- • ; •• . >. ' ■ - . 

T E X A =%lfTf 

H 



^ 






x>X->" 



C I , U D AD A .J U-.A..R E Z ,• 








CHIHUAHUA 



- -•■■• -4_ 




PRCLIMIN«I>Y PL< 



81 

E. The Commission recommends that in carrying out the construc- 
tion of works allotted to it, each Section of the Commission may make 
use of any competent public or private agencies in accordance with 
the laws of its country. 

F. It is recommended that each Section of the Commission observe, 
in the works which it may have to execute in the other country, the 
laws of that country, with the exemptions and facilities hereinafter 
stated : 

(1) All materials, implements, equipment and repair parts 
intended for the construction, operation and maintenance of such 
works shall be exempt from taxes relating to imports and exports. 
For this purpose, each Section of the Commission shall furnish 
verification certificates covering all materials, implements, equip- 
ment and repair parts, intended for such works. 

(2) The personnel employed either directly or indirectly on the 
construction, operation or maintenance of such works shall be 
permitted to pass freely from one country to the other for the 
purpose of going to and from the place of location of the works, 
without any immigration restrictions, passports, or labor require- 
ments. For this purpose, each Section of the Commission shall 
furnish adequate means of identification to the personnel em- 
ployed by it on the aforesaid works. 

G. The Commission recommends that construction of the works 
built in pursuance of the provisions of the Convention not confer 
upon either of the two countries any rights either of property or of 
jurisdiction over an}' part whatsoever of the territory of the other. 
and that the jurisdiction of each country be limited by the interna- 
tional boundary, which would be marked on the works. 

H. The Commission recommends that to effectuate the provisions 
of the Convention each Government through its respective Section of 
the Commission obtain and retain direct ownership, control and juris- 
diction over the part of the new channel of the river and the right-of- 
way in its own territory as shown on the Exhibit, the structures and 
improvements located therein except for the new bridges to replace 
the four that presently exist between El Paso and Ciudad Juarez, 
as well as over such other rights-of-way as each Government may 
require in its territory. 

The meeting then adjourned. 

J. F. Friedkin, 
Commissioner of the I T nited States. 
D. Herrera J., 

Commissioner of Mexico. 
J. D. Walstrom, 
Secretary of the I r nited States Section. 
Fernando Rivas S.. 
Secretary of the Mexican Section. 



83 



TREATY TO RESOLVE PENDING BOUNDARY DIFFER- 
ENCES AND MAINTAIN THE RIO GRANDE AND COLO- 
RADO RIVER AS THE INTERNATIONAL BOUNDARY 
BETWEEN THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA AND 
THE UNITED MEXICAN STATES 

The United States of America and the United Mexican States, 

Animated by a spirit of close friendship and mutual respect and 
desiring to: 

Resolve all pending boundary differences between the two countries, 

Restore to the Rio Grande its character of international boundary 
in the reaches where that character has been lost, arid preserve for the 
Rio Grande and Colorado River the character of international 
boundaries ascribed to them by the boundary treaties in force, 

Minimize changes in the channels of these rivers, and should these 
changes occur, attempt to resolve the problems arising therefrom 
promptly and equitably, 

Resolve problems relating to sovereignty over existing or future 
islands in the Rio Grande, 

And finally, considering that it is in the interest of both countries to 
delimit clearly their maritime boundaries in the Gulf of Mexico and 
in the Pacific Ocean, 

Have resolved to conclude this Treaty concerning their fluvial and 
maritime boundaries and for such purpose have named their pleni- 
potentiaries: 

The President of the United States of America, Robert H. McBride, 
Ambassador of the United States of America to Mexico, and 

The President of the United Mexican States, Antonio Carrillo 
Flores, Secretary of Foreign Relations, 

Who, having communicated to each other their respective full 
powers, found to be in good and due form, have agreed as follows: 

Article I 

In order to resolve the pending boundary cases of the Presidio- 
Ojinaga Tracts, the Horcon Tract, Beaver Island, and islands, in 
which the territory of one of the Contracting States has been placed 
on the opposite bank of the Rio Grande, and to restore this river as the 
international boundary, the United States and Mexico have decided 
to modify the position of the Rio Grande in certain reaches, in accord- 
ance with the following terms: 

A. To change the location of a section of the channel of the Rio 
Grande in the area of the Presidio-Ojinaga Tracts, so as to transfer 
from the north to the south side of the Rio Grande an area of 1606.19 
acres (650 hectares). This relocation shall be effected so that the middle 
of the new channel follows the alignment shown on the map of the 
International Boundary and Water Commission, United States and 
Mexico (hereinafter referred to as the "Commission"), entitled Re- 



84 



location of the Rio Grande in the Presidio-Ojinaga Tracts, attached 
to and forming a part of this Treaty. 

B. To change the location of the channel of the Rio Grande up- 
stream from and near Hidalgo-Reynosa, so as to transfer from the 
south to the north of the Rio Grande an area of 481.68 acres (194.93 
hectares). This relocation shall be effected so that the middle of the 
rectified channel follows the alignment shown on the Commission's 
map entitled Relocation of the Rio Grande Upstream from Hidalgo- 
Reynosa, attached to and forming a part of this Treaty. 

C. To change the location of the channel of the Rio Grande down- 
stream from and near Presidio-Ojinaga, so as to transfer from the south 
to the north of the Rio Grande an area of 252 acres (101.98 hectares). 
This relocation shall be effected so that the middle of the rectified 
channel follows the alignment shown on the Commission's map en- 
titled Relocation of the Rio Grande Downstream from Presidio- 
Ojinaga, attached to and forming a part of this Treaty. 

D. Once this Treaty has come into force and the necessary legisla- 
tion has been enacted for carrying it out, the two Governments shall 
determine, on the basis of a recommendation by the Commission, 
the period of time appropriate for each of them to carry out the 
following operations: 

(1) The acquisition, in conformity with its laws, of the lands 
to be transferred to the other and of the rights of way for the 
new river channels; 

(2) The orderly evacuation of the occupants of the lands re- 
ferred to in paragraph D (1) of this Article. 

E. The changes in location of the Rio Grande referred to in para- 
graphs A, B and C of this Article, shall be executed by the Commission 
as soon as practical in accordance with the engineering plans recom- 
mended by it and approved by the two Governments. The cost of 
these changes in location shall be equally divided between the two 
Governments, through an appropriate division of work recommended 
by the Commission in the same engineering plans. 

F. On the date on which the two Governments approve the Com- 
mission's Minute confirming the completion of the relocations of 
the channel of the Rio Grande provided for in paragraphs A, B and 
C of this Article, the change of location of the international boundary 
shall be effected in each case and the middle of the new channels of 
the Rio Grande and of tin 4 present channels north of the Horcon 
Tract and north of Beaver Island shall become the international 
boundary; and consequently the following territorial adjustments 
shall take place: 

(1) By reason of the rectification referred to in paragraph A of 
this Article, there shall pass from the north to the south of the 
Rio Grande within the territory of Mexico, 1606.19 acres (650 
hectares) in the Presidio-Ojinaga Tracts. 

(2) By reason of the rectification referred to in paragraph B of 
this Article, there shall pass from the south to the north of the 
Rio Grande 481.68 acres (194.93 hectares) to form a part of the 
territory of the United States. This transfer is in recognition of 
the fact that the Horcon Tract and Beaver Island, located south 
of the Rio Grande, comprising a total area of 481. OS acres (194.93 
hectares) now under the sovereignty of the United States shall 
pass to and become part of tin 1 territory of Mexico. 



85 



(3) By reason of the rectification referred to in paragraph C of 
this Article, there shall pass from the south to the north of the 
Rio Grande 252 acres (101.98 hectares) to form a part of the 
territory of the United States. This transfer is in recognition of 
the fact that, upon the adoption of the new boundary in accord- 
ance with Article II of this Treaty, Mexico will receive a greater 
number and acreage of islands than the United States. 

Article II 

In order to resolve uncertainties relating to the sovereignty 
over islands and to restore to the Rio Grande its character as the 
international boundary in those locations where this character has 
been lost between the Gulf of Mexico and its intersection with the land 
boundary, the Contracting States agree that: 

A. Except as provided in Articles I (F), III (B) and III (C) of this 
Treaty, from the date on which this Treaty enters into force, the inter- 
national boundary between the United States and Mexico in the 
limitrophe sections of the Rio Grande and the Colorado River shall 
run along the middle of the channel occupied by normal flow and, 
where either of the rivers has two or more channels, along the middle 
of the channel which in normal flows has the greater or greatest 
average width over its length, and from that time forward, this inter- 
national boundary shall determine the sovereignty over the lands on 
one side or the other of it, regardless of the previous sovereignty over 
these lands. 

B. For the purposes of this Treaty, the Commission shall in each 
cast determine the normal flows, which shall exclude flood flows, and 
the average widths, referred to in the preceding paragraph of this 
Article. 

C. The Commission, on the basis of the surveys which it shall carry 
out as soon as practical, shall with appropriate precision delineate the 
international boundary on maps or aerial photographic mosaics of the 
Rio Grande and of the Colorado River. In the future, the Commission 
shall make surveys as frequently as it may consider justifiable, but in 
any event at intervals not greater than ten years, and shall record the 
position of the international boundary on appropriate maps. Each of 
the Governments shall bear half of the costs and other expenses deter- 
mined by the Commission and approved by the two Governments for 
the surveys and maps relating to the boundaries. 

Article III 

In order to minimize problems brought about by future changes in 
the limitrophe channels of the Rio Grande and the Colorado River, 
the Contracting States agree that: 

A. When the Rio Grande or the Colorado River moves laterally 
eroding one of its banks and depositing alluvium on the opposite bank, 
the international boundary shall continue to follow the middle of the 
channel occupied by normal flow or, where there are two or more 
channels, it shall follow the middle of the channel which in normal 
flow has the greatest average width over its length. 

B. (1) When the Rio Grande or the Colorado River, through 
movements other than those described in paragraph A of this Article, 



86 



separates from one Contracting State a tract of land, which might be 
composed of or include islands, of no more than 617.76 acres (250 
hectares) and with an established population of no more than 100 
inhabitants, the Contracting State from which the tract of land has 
been separated shall have the right to restore the river to its prior 
position and shall notify the other Contracting State, through the 
Commission, at the earliest possible date whether or not it proposes 
to restore the river to its prior position. Such restoration must be 
made at its own expense within a period of throe years counted from 
the date on which the Commission acknowledges the separation; 
however, if such restoration should have been initiated but not com- 
pleted within the period of three years, the Commission, with approval 
of both Governments, may extend it for one year. The boundary shall 
remain in its prior location during the periods herein provided for 
restoration of the river, notwithstanding the provisions of Article 
11(A) of this Treaty. 

(2) If at the conclusion of the periods herein provided the river has 
not been restored to its prior position, the international boundary 
shall be fixed in accordance with the pro visions of Article 11(A) of 
this Treaty, and sovereignty over the separated tract of land shall, as 
of that date, pass to the Contracting State on whose side of the river 
the separated tract is then located. Should the Contracting State 
from whose territory the tract was separated notify the other Con- 
tracting State of its intention not to restore the river to its prior posi- 
tion, the international boundary shall be fixed in accordance with the 
provisions of Article 11(A) of this Treaty, and sovereignty over the 
separated tract shall change as of the date on which notification is 
given through the Commission. 

(3) When a tract of land passes from the sovereignty of one Con- 
tracting State to the other in accordance with paragraph B(2) of this 
Article, its area shall be ascertained and recorded by the Commission 
as a credit in favor of the Contracting State from which it was sep- 
arated, for later compensation by an equal area in a natural separation 
of a tract of the other Contracting State which is not restored or in a 
future rectification recommended by the Commission and approved 
by the two Governments in the same river. The costs of such rectifi- 
cations shall be divided equally between the Contracting States and, 
upon completion, the middle of the new channels shall become the 
international boundary and the Commission shall cancel the cor- 
responding credit. 

C. When the Rio Grande or the Colorado River, by movements 
other than those provided in paragraph A of this Article, separates 
from one Contracting State a tract of land, which might be composed 
of or include islands, having an area of more than 617.76 acres (250 
hectares) or an established population of more than 100 inhabitants, 
the international boundary shall remain in its prior position and 
sovereignty over the separated trad of land shall not change, not- 
withstanding the provisions of Article 11(A) of this Treaty In such 
cases the Commission shall restore the river to its prior channel as 
soon as practical, equally dividing the costs between the Con- 
tracting States. As an alternative procedure the Commission, with 
the approval of the two Governments, may rectify the channel of 
the river in the same section in which the separation occurred, so as 
to transfer an equal area to the Contracting State from which the 



87 



tract of land was separated. The costs of these rectifications shall be 
divided equally between the two Governments and, upon their 
completion, the middle of the new channels shall be the international 
boundary, as defined in Article 11(A) of this Treaty. 

D. The Commissioners shall exchange all information coming to 
their attention about possible or actual separation of lands as referred 
to in paragraphs B and C of this Article. The Commission shall 
promptly make the necessary surveys and investigations in all cases 
of separation and determine, in accordance with the provisions of 
paragraphs B and C of this Article, which type of separation has 
taken place. 

E. Pending any changes in sovereignty brought about by the 
application of paragraphs B or C of this Article, each Contracting 
State shall extend to the nationals of the other such facilities for transit 
through its territory as may be necessary to permit the use and enjoy- 
ment of separated tracts as before the separation, including such 
exemption from customs duties and immigration procedures as may 
be necessary. 

F. When in the limitrophe reaches of the Rio Grande and Colorado 
River, a part of the channel temporarily loses its character as th 
boundary by reason of the changes contemplated in paragraphs B and 
C of this Article, the international character of the use and consump- 
tion of those waters, in the order established under Article 3 of the 
Treaty of February 3, 1944, shall not be modified. 

Article IV 

In order to reduce to a minimum the shifting of the channels of the 
Rio Grande and the Colorado River in their limitrophe sections, and 
the problems that would be caused by the separation of tracts of land, 
the Contracting States agree that: 

A. Each Contracting State, in the limitrophe sections of the Rio 
Grande and the Colorado River, may protect its bank against erosion 
and, where either of the rivers has more than one channel, may con- 
struct works in the channel or channels that are completely within 
its territory in order to preserve the character of the limitrophe 
channel provided, however, that in the judgment of the Commission 
the works that are to be executed under this paragraph do not ad- 
versely affect the other Contracting State through the deflection or 
obstruction of the normal flow of the river or of its flood flows. 

B. (1) Both in the main channel of the river and on adjacent lands 
to a distance on either side of the international boundary recommended 
by the Commission and approved by the two Governments, each 
Contracting State shall prohibit the construction of works in its 
territory which, in the judgment of the Commission, may cause 
deflection or obstruction of the normal flow of the river or of its 
flood flows. 

(2) If the Commission should determine that any of the works 
constructed by one of the two Contracting States in the channel of 
the river or within its territory causes such adverse effects on the 
territory of the other Contracting State, the Government of tin 4 
Contracting State that constructed the works shall remove them or 
modify them and, by agreement of the Commission, shall repair or 



88 



compensate for the damages sustained by the other Contracting 
State. 

C. (1) The Commission shall recommend to the two Governments 
the execution of works it may consider advisable and practical foi 
improvement and stabilization of the channels of the Rio Grande 
and of the Colorado River in its limitrophe sections, including among 
others the following measuies: clearing, channel excavations, bank 
protection and rectifications. The Commission shall include in its 
recommendations an estimate of the costs of construction, operation 
and maintenance of the works, and a proposal for the division of the 
work and costs between the Contracting States. 

(2) As soon as may be practical, after the two Governments ap- 
prove the Commission's recommendations, each of the Contracting 
States shall execute, at its expense, its share of the construction, 
operation and maintenance referred to in paragiaph C(l) of this 
Article. 

Article V 

The Contracting States agree to establish and recognize their mari- 
time boundaries in the Gulf of Mexico and in the Pacific Ocean in 
accordance with the following pro visions: 

A. The international maritime boundary in the Gulf of Mexico 
shall begin at the center of the mouth of the Rio Grande, wherever it 
may be located; from there it shall run in a straight line to a fixed 
point, at 25° 57' 22.18" North latitude, and 97° 8' 19. 76" West longi- 
tude, situated approximately 2,000 feet seaward from the coast; from 
this fixed point the maritime boundary shall continue seaward in a 
straight line the delineation of which represents a practical simplifica- 
tion of the line drawn in accordance with the principle of equidistance 
established in Articles 12 and 24 of the Geneva Convention on the 
Territorial Sea and the Contiguous Zone. This line shall extend into 
the Gulf of Mexico to a distance of 12 nautical miles from the baseline 
used for its delineation. The international maritime boundary in the 
Gulf of Mexico shall be recognized in accordance with the map entitled 
International Maritime Boundary in the Gulf of Mexico, which the 
Commission shall prepare in conformity with the foregoing description 
and which, once approved by the Governments, shall be annexed to 
and form a part of this Treaty. 

B. The international maritime boundary in the Pacific Ocean shall 
begin at the westernmost point of the mainland boundary; from there 
it shall run seaward on a line the delineation of which represents a 
practical simplification, through a series of straight lines, of the line 
drawn in accordance with the principle of equidistance established in 
Articles 12 and 24 of the Geneva Convention on the Territorial Sea 
and the Contiguous Zone. This line shall extend seaward to a distance 
of 12 nautical miles from the baselines used for its delineation along 
the coast of the mainland and the islands of the Contracting States. 
The international maritime boundary in the Pacific Ocean shall be 
recognized in accordance with the map entitled International Mari- 
time Boundary in the Pacific Ocean, which the Commission shall pre- 
pare in conformity with the foregoing description and which, once 
approved by the Governments, shall be annexed to and form a part 
of this Treaty. 

C. These maritime boundaries, as they are shown in maps of the 
Commission entitled International Maritime Boundarv in the Gulf of 



89 



Mexico and International Maritime Boundary in the Pacific Ocean, 
shall be recognized as of the date on which this Treaty enters into 
force. They shall permanently represent the maritime boundaries be- 
tween the two Contracting- States; on the south side of these bound- 
aries the United States shall not, and on the north side of them 
Mexico shall not, for any purpose claim or exercise sovereignty, 
soverign rights or jurisdiction over the waters, air space, or seabed 
and subsoil. Once recognized, these new boundaries shall supersede 
the provisional maritime boundaries referred to in the Commission's 
Minute Xo. 229. 

D.' The establishment of these new maritime boundaries shall not 
affect or prejudice in any manner the positions of either of the Con- 
tracting States with respect to the extent of internal waters, of the 
territorial sea, or of sovereign rights or jurisdiction for any other 
purpose. 

E. The Commission shall recommend the means of physically 
marking the maritime boundaries and of the division of work for 
construction and maintenance of the markers. When such recommen- 
dations have been approved by the two Governments the Commission 
shall construct and maintain the markers, the cost of which shall be 
equally divided between the Contracting States. 

Article VI 

A. The lands and improvements which, upon relocation of the 
international boundary under the provisions of Articles I, III and IV 
of this Tieaty, are transferred from one Contracting State to the other, 
shall pass to the respective Contracting State in absolute ownership, 
free of any private titles or encumbrances of any kind; compensation 
to the owners of the lands to be transferred shall be the responsibility 
of the delivering Contracting State. No payments shall be made 
between the two Governments for value of the lands and improve- 
ments transferred from one Contracting State to the other as a result 
of the change of location of the international boundary. 

B. The relocation of the international boundary and the transfer of 
portions of territory or any other provision of this Treaty shall not 
affect in any way : 

(1) The legal status with respect to citizenship laws, of those 
persons who are present or former residents of the portions of 
territory transferred ; 

(2) The jurisdiction over legal proceedings, of cither a civil or 
criminal character, which are pending on the date on winch the 
relocation is effected or which were decided prior to that date; 

(3) The jurisdiction over acts or omissions occurring within 
or with respect to the said portions of territory prior to their 
transfer; 

(4) The law or laws applicable to the acts or omissions referred 
to in paragraph B (3) of this Article. 

C. (1) All materials, implements, equipment and repair parts 
intended for the construction, operation and maintenance of the works 
required to carry out the provisions of this Treaty shall be exempt 
from taxes relating to imports and exports. For this purpose, each 
Section of the Commission shall furnish verification certificates cover- 
ing all materials, implements, equipment and repair parts intended 
for such works. 



90 



(2) The personnel employed either directly or indirectly on the 
construction, operation or maintenance of the works required to 
carry out the provisions of this Treaty shall be permitted to pass 
freely from one country to the other for the purpose of going to and 
from the place or location of the works, without any immigration 
restrictions, passports, or labor requirements. For this purpose, each 
Section of the Commission shall furnish adequate means of identifica- 
tion to the personnel employed by it on the aforesaid works. 

Article VII 

The boundary on international bridges which cross the Rio Grande 
or the Colorado River shall be shown by an appropriate monument 
exactly over the international boundary determined by this Treaty 
at the time of demarcation. When in the judgment of the Commission 
the variations of the international boundary should warrant that the 
monument on any bridge should be relocated, it shall so recommend 
to the two Governments and with their approval may proceed to the 
reinstallation. This monument shall denote the boundary for all the 
pui poses of such bridge. Any rights other than those relating to the 
bridge itself shall be determined, in case later changes occur, in 
accordance with the provisions of this Treaty. 

Article VIII 

The following agreements shall be terminated as of the entry into 
force of this Treaty, without prejudice to any right, title or interest 
which has accrued thereunder except as otherwise provided in this 
Treaty with respect to such right, title or interest : 

A. the Convention Touching the International Boundary Line, 
signed on November 12, 1884; 

B. the Convention for the Elimination of Bancos in the Rio Grande, 
signed on March 20, 1905; and 

C. to the extent that they are inconsistent with this Treaty: 

(1) Article V of the Treaty of Guadalupe Hidalgo, signed on 
February 2, 1848; 

(2) Article I of the Gadsden (Mesilla) Treaty, signed on 
December 30, 1853; 

(3) Article IV of the Convention establishing the International 
Boundary Commission, signed March 1, 1889; and 

(4) Article VI of the Convention on Rectification of the Rio 
Grande, signed February 1, 1933; and 

D. any other agreement, or any part thereof, between the United 
States of America and the United Mexican States which is inconsistent 
with this Treaty, to the extent of that inconsistency. 

Article IX 

The present Treaty shall be ratified in accordance with the con- 
stitutional processes of each Contracting State and the instruments 
of ratification shall be exchanged in Washington, D.C. as soon as 
possible. It shall enter into force on the date of the exchange of 
ratifications. 

Done at the City of Mexico, the twenty-third day of November, 
nineteen seventy, in the English and Spanish languages, each text- 
being equally authentic. 



www* ^ T 

JM/N: Mt E.,D ^ 



T ATE Sfc 

.... 



;:A 





\ 



\ 



scale i 20.000 



+ -K 



N, 



TYPICAL CROSS SECTIONS OF THE RIO GRANDE 



RELOCATION OF THE RIO GRANDE 

IN THE 

PRESIDIO -OJINAGA TRACTS 



COMMISSIONER 

Of THE 
UNITED STATES 



COMMISSIONED 

OF 

MEXICO 



j$&.;<,. .. Cz ^2^^/ : 



NOVEMBER 19 1970 






1 



91 



For the United States of America: 
Robert H. McBride. 

For the United Mexican States: 
Antonio Carrillo Flores. 



RELOCATION OF THE RIO GRANDE IN THE PRESI DIO-OJ INAGA TRACTS 
TABLE OF COORDINATES OF TRAVERSE POINTS 

THIS TABLE FORMS A PART OF THE MAP "RELOCATION OF THE KIO GKANDE 
IN THE PRESIDIO-OJINAGA TRACTS" DATED NOVEMBER 19»1970. 

• PAGE 1 OF 2 





COORDINATES 


IN FEET* 


COORDINATES 


IN METERS* 


STATION 


NORTH 


EAST 




NORTH 


EAST 


1 


695722. OC 


267120. 


00 


209008.07 


81418.13 


2 


695153.99 


26734S, 


68 


203834.94 


81437. aa 


3 


693930.16 


268289. 


82 


209461.91 


81774.74 


4 


671966.39 


234276. 


90 


204815.36 


86647.60 


99 


670906.92 


284983. 


87 


204492.40 


36363.08 


99 


669344.98 


285380. 


00 


204016.35 


86983.82 


90 


669725.00 


285000, 


00 


204132.18 


86663.00 


91 


669329.03 


234842. 


22 


204163.39 


36319.91 


92 


6700C0.00 


284893. 


CO 


204216.00 


86836.91 


92 


670367.41 


295 120. 


68 


204327.99 


36904.78 


94 


67052C00 


235375. 


CO 


2043-74.50 


36932.30 


95 


670780.00 


285395 


00 


204453^.74 


36938.40 


96 


670989.54 


285221 


.91 


204517.61 


86935.64 


97 


671160.00 


285000 


,00 


204569.57 


86363.00 


5 


671237.30 


284366. 


,63 


204593.28 


86827.35 


; 6 


671290.00 


284760, 


00 


204609.19 


86794.85 


7 


671420.00 


23423C, 


00 


204643.32 


86643.54 


9 


6713P5.00 


293735. 


00 


204639.15 


86432.43 


9 


671144.75 


283272. 


78 


204564.92 


86341.54 


10 


671200.00 


231972. 


CO 


204531.76 


35945.07 


11 


670793.76 


230584. 


83 


204459.46 


85522.26 


12 


671670.00 


280330. 


CO 


204725.02 


85444.58 


13 


671655.00 


279425. 


00 


204720.44 


85168.74 


14 


671735.00 


278895. 


CO 


.204744.33 


85007.20 


15 


672**5.00 


273785. 


00 


205095.35 


34973.6,7 


u 


673415.37 


278334. 


5C 


205257.16 


84836.36 


17 


674560.00 


275960. 


00 


205605.59 


84112.61 


19 


674955.00 


275505. 


00 


205726.23 


83973.92 


19 


674750.00 


274925, 


CO 


205663.80 


83797.14 


20 


675395.00 


274345 


CO 


2C5860.40 


93620.36 


21 


675710.00 


273320 


,00 


205956.41 


83460.34 


22 


675210.00 


273265, 


,00 


205804.01 


63291.17 


23 


675560.00 


272430 


,00 


205910.69 


83036.66 


24 


676015.00 


272585 


.00 


206049.37 


83083.91 


25 


676115.00 


272800 


► 00 


206079.35 


83149.44 


26 


675995.00 


273255 


.00 


206040.23 


83253.12 


27 


676095.00 


273530 


.00 


206073.76 


93371.94 


29 


676605.00 


273675 


.00 


206229.20 


33416. 14 


29 


676515.00 


273C15 


.00 


• 206201.77 


33214.97 


30 


677135.00 


272500 


.00 


206390.75 


33058.00 


31 


677795.00 


271905 


.CO 


206591.92 


32846. 16 


32 


67^100.00 


271390 


. 00 


206684.83 


82372.07 


33 


678605. CO 


271815 


.00 


205838.80 


82349.21 


34 


673660.00 


271590 


.00 


206855.57 


32777.53 


35 


'673480.00 


271345 


.00 


206300.70 


62705.96 


36 


679460.00 


271095 


.CO 


206794.61 


32629.76 


37 


673195.00 


270915 


.00 


206713.84 


62574.39 


3B 


673155.00 


270725 


.00 


206701.64 


82516.98 


39 


67957*. 00 


270455 


.00 


206830.57 


92434.53 


40 


678540.00 


270225 


.00 


206613.99 


32364.5? 



• TEXAS STATE LAM3ERT PROJECTION-SOUTH CENTRAL ZO\E . 

76-432 O - 76 - 7 



92 



RELOCATION OF THE RIO GRANDE IN THE PRES I D 1 0-0 J I XAGA TRACTS 
TABLE OF COORDINATES OF TRAVERSE POINTS 

THIS TABLE FCRiVJS A PART OF THE VAP "RELOCATION OF THE *I0 GRANDE 
IN THE PRESIDIO-OJINAGA TRACTS" DATED NOVEMBER 19.1970. 

PAGE 2 OF 2 





COORDINATES 


IN FFET* 


COORDINATES 


IN *ET€*S* 


STATION 


NORTH 


EAST 


NORTH 


EAS1 




• 41 


678370, 


o « 


270120, 


,00 


206757.13 


82332, 


53 


42 


6780B5< 


sj \J 


270310, 


00 


206580.31 


32390, 


49 


43 


677955, 


CO 


270260, 


00 


206640.63 


32375, 


25 


44 


677790, 


00 


270000, 


« n 


206590.39 


82296, 


00 


45 


6778.10, 


<■> r\ 


269705. 


CO 


206596.49 


82206, 


03 


46 


679060, 


00 


269455 


CO 


206672.69 


82129, 


38 


47 


678075, 


00 


269310. 


CO 


205677.26 


52065. 


69 


4* 


677855, 


00 


269100 


» C 


206610.20 


82C21, 


6 8 


49 


677400, 


00 


269045. 


,00 


. 206495.90 


32004, 


92 


50 


676995, 


00 


269175 


,00 


205317.60 


92044, 


54 


51 


676590, 


00 


259435 


,00 


206224.63 


32123, 


79 


52 


676385, 


00 


26982C 


.00 


206162.15 


82241. 


14 


53 


676500, 


00 


270360 


.00 


206197.20 


32405, 


73 


54 


676195, 


CO 


270500 


.CO 


206104.24 


32448, 


40 


55 


676005, 


CO 


270435 


.00 


206046.32 


32423, 


59 


56 


675340, 


00 


270155 


,00 


205996.03 


32343, 


24 


57 


675395. 


00 


269305 


,CC 


2060 12.80 


32034, 


16 


58 


67605C, 


,00 


266390 


.CO 


206060.04 


31905. 


27 


59 


676735. 


00 


267710 


.00 


206263.33 


81598, 


01 


60 


67735C 


,00 


267595 


.00 


206456.28 


31559. 


91 


61 


6776Q5, 


00 


267730. 


,00 


206561.44 


81604, 


,10 


62 


678065, 


CO 


267550 


,co 


206674.21 


81549. 


,24 


63 


6782P5, 


00 


267090 


,00 


206741.27 


314C9. 


03 


64 


67844Ci 


00 


266930 


,00 


206733.51 


31360. 


,26 


65 


678345, 


,00 


266725 


,00 


206759.56 


81297, 


,78 


66 


6734CC. 


,00 


266630 


,00 


206776.32 


31268. 


32 


67 


678645 


,00 


266630 


,00 


206351.00 


31263, 


,82 


69 


679260 


,00 


267260 


,00 


207033.45 


61460, 


65 


69 


679615. 


,00 


267930 


,00 


207146.65 


31655, 


06 


70 


679870, 


00 


263265 


,00 


207224.33 


81767, 


17 


71 


680255. 


,00 


269225 


,00 


207341.72 


81754, 


93 


72 


530685. 


,00 


267725 


,00 


207472.79 


81602, 


58 


73 


681040, 


,00 


267050 


,00 


207580.99 


31396, 


34 


74 


631425. 


,00 


266185 


,00 


207693.34 


81133. 


19 


75 


691910 


,00 


265875 


,00 


207815.69 


31033, 


7C 


. 76 


682515 


,00 


265735 


,00 


209030.57 


31011, 


,27 


77 


693140 


,00 


265920 


.00 


208221.07 


31052, 


,42 


73 


683415 


,00 


266105 


.00 


203304.89 


51105 


,30 


79 


693765. 


► CO •- 


266020 


• \JsJ 


205411.57 


310 5 2 


,90 


90 


693995 


,00 


266070 


.00 


203431.63 


910 9 3 


,14 


81 


684150 


,00 


266335 


,00 


203523.92 


31178 


,91 


82 


684125 


► 00 


2656C5 


.CO 


203521.30 


81261 


.20 


83 


684310 


► CO 


256990 


.00 


2 03577.69 


0I37S 


,55 


94 


. 684620 


,00 


267165 


.00 


208672.18 


81431 


,69 


95 


634865 


.00 


267215 


. 00 


203746.35 


31447 


.13 


86 


695220 


.00 . 


267200 


,cc 


208955.06 


81442 


,56 


87 


685535 


.00 


267105 


.00 


203951.07 


31413, 


,60 



AREA= 1606.19 ACHES 550.00 HECTARES 
TEXAS STATE LAMBERT PROJECTION-SOUTH CENTRAL ZONE 










*$ 



We 









PRELIMINARY ESTIMATE OF COSTS FOR RELOCATION OF THE 
RIO GRANOE UPSTREAM FROM HlOALGO-RETNOSA 






imVoo) UNITED STATES \ 

\ HIDALGO - REYNOSA 

"o. C .°"\ AREA ° 


ITEM 


UNIT 


ESTIMATED 


ESTIMATED COST 
IN U S CY, 




Cleormgond grubbing 
Diversion ond core of 

Drains for the old river 
Engineering 9 Contingen ■ 


L S 
CT 


136 

2 
156 900 


i 14 000 

20 000 

1 392 000 

20 000 

78 000 




$ 1 524 000 

404 000 


M.XICO ™^j 3 




$ 1 926 000 


LOCATION MAP 



TYPICAL CROSS SECTION 

RIO GRANDE RELOCATION 

UPSTREAM FROM HIOALGO-REYNOSA 



RELOCATION OF THE RIO GRANDE 
UPSTREAM FROM HIDALGO- REYNOSA 



se Points used i, 



"" ^-d&Ji~t2U^ 



93 



Description of Relocation Channel of the Rio Grande in the 
Presidio-Ojinaga Tracts 

THIS DESCRIPTION FORMS A PART OF THE MAP ENTITLED "RELOCATION 
OF THE RIO GRANDE IN THE PRESIDIO-OJINAGA TRACTS," DATED 
NOVEMBER 19, 1970 

The center of the new channel of the Rio Grande begins at Point 1, 
with coordinates North 685,722.00 feet and East 267,120.00 feet; 
thence 612.30 feet along a tangent bearing South 21°55 / 48' / East to 
Point 2, the beginning of a curve, with coordinates North 685,153.99 
feet and East 267,348.68 feet; thence with a circular curve to the left 
with length of 1,563.19 feet and radius of 2,865.03 feet to Point 3, 
the end of curve, with coordinates North 683,930.16 feet and East 
268,289.82 feet; thence 19,967.95 feet along a tangent bearing South 
53°11'28" East to Point 4, the beginning of a curve 1 , with coordinates 
North 671,966.39 feet and East 284,276.90 feet; thence with a cir- 
cular curve to the right with length of 1,298.64 feet and radius of 
1,909.86 feet to Point 88, the end of curve with coordinates North 
670,906.82 feet and East 284,983.87 feet; thence 1,611.29 feet along 
a tangent bearing South 14°13 , 55 // East to the end of relocation at 
Point 89 with coordinates North 669,344.98 feet and East 285,380.00 
feet. The total length of the relocation of the Rio Grande is 25,053.38 
feet. 

Coordinates are on Texas State Lambert Projection, South Central 
Zone. 



94 



RELOCATION OF THE RIO GRANDE UPSTREAM FROM HIDALGO-REYNOSA 
TABLE OF COORDINATES OF TRAVERSE POINTS 

THIS TABLE FORMS A PART OF THE MAP "RELOCATION OF THE *IQ GRANDE 
UPSTREAM FROM HIDALGO-REYNOSA" DATED NOVEMBER 19,1970. 





COORDINATES 


IN FEET* 


COORDINATES 


IN METERS* 


STATION 


SOUTH 


EAST 


SOUTH 


EAST 


1 


104809.98 


234477.37 


31946.08 


71468.70 


2 


103806.50 


233463.13 


31640.22 


71159.56 


3 


102484.42 


233268.94 


31237.25 


71100.37 


4 


101437.77 


233403.03 


30918.23 


71141.24 


5 


100994.62 


233865.43 


30733.16 


712S2»18 


6 


100971.30 


234672.51 


30776.05 


71523.18 


7 


102535.54 


236307.09 


31252.33 


72026.40 


n 


103224.31 


236789.71 


31462.77 


72173.50 


9 


103352.07 


237209.72 


31501.71 


72301.52 


10 


103896.59 


237413.36 


31667.63 


72363.59 


11 


103919.16 


238263.10 


31674.56 


72622.59 


12 


103289.05 


238679.47 


31482.50 


72749.50 


13 


102093.83 


238898.47 


31118.20 


72816.25 


1* 


101228.55 


238947.53 


30854.46 


72331.22 


15 


100765.78 


239311.56 


30713.41 


72942.16 


16 


100453.88 


239806.83 


30618.34 


73093.12 


17 


100483.11 


?40463.C0 


30627.25 


73293.12 


18 


101014.31 


.741132.52 


30799.16 


73497.19 


19 


101998.46 


241339.64 


31089.13 


. . 73560.32 


20 


102903.97 


241353.16 


31365.13 


7 3564.44 


21 


104901.94 


241531.24 


31974.11 


73618.72 


22 


105534.91 


242063.03 


32167.04 


^3750. 31 


23 


104070.28 


237869.43 


31720.62 


72502.60 


24 


105695.54 


234563.66 


32216. CC 


71495.00 



AREA* 481.68 ACRES 194.93 HECTARES 



COORDINATES WITH ORGIN AT R.P. Et ROMAtTEXAS 



FT 

: 





: v\t\. 



%-W^ . = _ 



TYPICAL CROSS SECTIONS OF THE BIO GRANDE 




RELOCATION OF THE RIO GRANDE 

DOWNSTREAM FROM 

PRESIDIO -OJINAGA 



1 



COMMISSIONER 

OF IHE 
UNITED STATES 



=mt^ 



95 



Description of Relocation Channel of the Rio Grande Upstream 
From Hidalgo-Reynosa 



OF THE RIO GRANDE UPSTREAM FROM HIDALGO-REYNOSA, DATED 
NOVEMBER 19, 1970 

The center of the new channel of the Rio Grande begins at Point 
24, the beginning of a curve, with coordinates South 105,695.54 feet 
and East 234,563.66 feet; thence northeasterly with a circular curve 
to the right with length of 4,100.07 feet and radius of 2,585.30 feet to 
Point 23, the end of curve with coordinates South 104,070.28 feet and 
East 237,869.43 feet; thence 4,442.00 feet along a tangent bearing 
South 70°44 , 52 ,/ East, to Point 22, the end of relocation with coor- 
dinates South 105,534.91 feet and East 242,063.03 feet. The total 
length of the relocation of the Rio Grande is 8,542.07 feet. 

Coordinates with origin at Reference Point "E," Roma, Texas. 



96 



RELOCATION OF RIO GRANDE DOWNSTREAM FROM PRES I D IO-Oj INAGA 
TABLE OF COORDINATES OF TRAVERSE POINTS 

THIS TABLE FORMS A PART OF THE vAP "RELOCATION OF THE RIO GRANDE 
DOWNSTREAM FROM PRESI DIO-OJ INAGA" DATED NOVEMBER 19. 1970. 







TRACT NO. 


1 






COORDINATES 


IN. FEET* 


COORDINATES 


IN METERS* 


STATION 


NORTH 


EAST 


NORTH 


EAST 


1 


665605.00 


285825.00 


202876.40 


87119.46 


2 


664761.05 


286564.60 


202619.17 


87344.89 


3 


664590.00 


236410.00 


202567. C3 


37297.77 


4 


664615. CO 


286215.00 


20257^.65 


37238.33 


5 


6648.95. CO 


285650.00 


202660.00 


87127.03 


6 


665435.00 


285855.00 


202824.59 


37126.60 






AREA = 


7.75 ACRES 3« 


13 HECTARES 






TRACT NO. 


2 






COORDINATES 


IN FEET* 


COORDINATES 


IN vtTERS* 


STATION 


NORTH 


EAST 


NORTH 


EAST 


2 


664761. 05 


236564.60 


202619.17 


37344.39 


7 


664850.03 


236645.00 


202646.28 


37369.4C 


3 


665CCC.00 


236720. CO 


202692.00 


37392.26 


9 


665085.03 


287085. CO 


202717.91 


37503.51 


10 


664845.00 


237525.00 


202644.76 


87637.62 


11 


664925.00 


238005.00 


202669.14 


37733.92 


12 


665100.00 


238350.00 


202722.43 


37889. C3 


13 


665C7C.00 


233620. CO 


202713.34 


37971.33 


14 


664900.00 


2 38 380.00 


202661.52 


38050.62 


15 


66458C.00 


239H5.C0 


202563.98 


38122.25 


16 


664295.00 


289235. CO 


202477.12 


83153.83 


17 


663965.00 


28927C.C0 


202376.53 


38159.50 


18 


663435.00 


289105.00 


202214.99 


98119.20 


19 


662920.00 


289C35.C0 


202C53.C2 


93113.11 


20 


662423.33 


238613.33 


201906.63 


37969.34 



AREA= 92.32 ACRES 37.36 HECTARES 







TRACT NO. 3 








COORDINATES 


IN FEET* 


COORDINATES IN 


.*>ETE3S* 


STATION 


NORTH 


EAST 


NORTH 


EAST 


20 


662423.33 


283613.33 


201906.63 


37969.34 


21 


661189.21 


239694.39 


201530.47 


382*9.30 


22 


660799.56 


29050^.80 


201411.71 


99576.34 


23 


66026^.94 


290109.83 


201248.75 


93425.43 


24 


660270.00 


2 9 9300.00 


201250.30 


33173.64 


25 


660910.00 


293450.00 


201445.37 


97919.56 


26 


6,61140.00 


23835C.CC 


201515.47 


373«9.03 


27 


661335.00 


283320.00 


201727.31 


3 7 9 79. 94 


28 


662255.00 


288445.C0 


201655.32 


379ie.C4 






AREAx 52. 


90 ACRES 21.41 


HECTARES 



♦ TEXAS STATE LAr'3ERT PROJECTION-SOUTH CENTRAL ZON: 



97 



RELOCATION OF RIO GRANDE DO/.'NSTREAM FROv PRES I D I Q-OJ I NAGA 
TABLE OF COORDINATES OF TRAVERSE POINTS 

THIS TABLE FORMS A PART OF THE MAP "RELOCATION OF THE RIO GRANDE 
DOWNSTREAM FROM PRES I D IO-OJ INAGA" DATED NOVEMBER 19.1970. 

TRACT NO. 4 





COORDINATES 


IN FEET* 


COORDINATES 


IN METERS* 


STATION 


NORTH 


EAST 


NORTH 


EAST 


1 


660520.00 


293290.00 


201326.50 


?9294.79 


2 


658590.00 


295095.00 


200735.18 


39944.96 


3 


658 70 0.00 


294993.00 


200771.76 


=9332.47 


4 


6 58 770.".") 


294230.00 


233793.13 


39631.30 


5 


65 8865.00 


29 3 910.00 


200822.05 


39533.77 


6 


659155.00 


293675.00 


200910.^4 


39512*14 


7 


659810.00 


29 3640.00 


201110.09 


39501.47 


3 


660000.00 


293590.00 


2 3 116 3.:: 


39436.2 3 


9 


660290. OC 


293475. CO 


231256.39 


39451.18 



AREA = 



19.37 ACRES 



4 HECTARES 







TRACT NO. <: 








COORDINATES 


I . M FEET* 


COORDINATES 


IN METERS* 


STATION 


NORTH 


EAST 


•vlORTH 


EAST 


1 


653023.27 


295634.35 


200565.49 


90130.21 


2 


657910.00 


295900.00 


200530.97 


90159.54 


3 


657950.33 


296030.00 


2 30512.63 


?3245. 13 


4 


657855.00 


296395.00 


2005 14. 20 


90341.23 


5 


658075.00 


296735.00 


233531.26 


90444. 33 


6 


658740.30 


297025.00 


233733.95 


90533.22 


7 


659040.00 


297335.00 


200375.39 


90536.27 


8 


659330.00 


296900.00 


233963.73 


90464.64 


9 


659640.00 


296 92 5.00 


201058.27 


90502.74 


10 


659730.03 


297115.00 


201100.94 


93563.65 


11 


659740.03 


29734-0.00 


231033.75 


90629.23 


12 


659545.00 


297990.00 


201029.32 


90527.35 


13 


659390.00 


293230.00 


2 0093 2.07 


90903.53 


14 


659960.03 


293 5 3 3.00 


200820.53 


90991.94 


15 


659080.03 


293795.00 


200552.73 


91072.72 


16 


657495.03 


293730.00 


200404.43 


9 1 5 2 . 9 


17 


656635.33 


293 22 3.03 


200142.35 


908 97.4b 


18 


656045.00 


293295.30 


199962.52 


90923.32 


19 


655839.23 


298291.44 


199399. 33 


90919.23 



A3EA = 



132.73 ACRES 53.73 HECTARES 



TEXAS STATE LA.'-'BERT PROJECTION-SOUTH CENTRAL ZONE 



98 



RELOCATION OF RIO GRANDE DOWNSTREAM FROM PRESIDIO-OJINAGA 
TABLE OF COORDINATES OF TRAVERSE POINTS 

THIS TABLE FORMS A PART OF THE MAP "RELOCATION OF THE RIO GRANDE 
DOWNSTREAM FROM PRESIDIO-OJINAGA" DATED NOVEMBER 19tl970. 







TRACT NO. 


6 






COORDINATES 


IN FEET* 


COORDINATES 


IN METERS* 


STATION 


NORTH 


EAST 


NORTH 


EAST 


19 


655339.23 


298291.44 


199899.80 


90919.23 


20 


654984.90 


299342.59 


199639.39 


91239.62 


21 


654910.30 


299165.00 


199616.57 


91185.49 


22 


654905.00 


298905.00 


199615.04 


91106.24 


23 


655100.03 


298515.00 


199674.48 


90987.37 


24 


6554*0.00 


298285.00 


199784.21 


90917.27 






AREA* 


9.31 ACRES 3, 


77 HECTARES 






TRACT NO. 


7 






COORDINATES 


IN FEET* 


COORDINATES 


IN METERS* 


STATION 


NQ3TH 


EAST 


NORTH 


EAST 


20 


654984.90 


299342.59 


199639.39 


91239.62 


25 


6551<>0.0C 


299805.00 


199693.86 


91380.56 


26 


654935.00 


300705.00 


199624.19 


91654.88 


27 


655035.00 


301010.00 


199654.67 


91747.85 


28 


655036.94 


301221.92 


199655.26 


91812.44 


29 


654571.94 


302496.92 


199513.53 


92201.06 


30 


654255.00 


302825.00 


199416.92 


92301.06 


31 


653860.30 


303040.00 


199296.53 


92366.59 


32 


6 5 35 R5. CO 


303110.00 


199212.71 


92387.93 


33 


653120.00 


3C311C.00 


199070.98 


92387.93 


34 


652275.00 


3C292C.0C 


198813.42 


92330.02 


35 


651982.00 


303037.11 


198724.11 


92365.71 



AREA* 116.23 ACRES 47.04 HECTARES 



* TEXAS STATE LAMBERT PROJECTION-SOUTH CENTRAL ZONE 




GULF OF MEXICO 



GOLFO DE MEXICO 



INTERNATIONAL MARITIME BOUNDARY 
GULF OF MEXICO 



^OJ^~* 



PACIFIC OCEAN 



.c 



""" l«l 



OCEANO PACIFICO 



INTERNATIONAL MARITIME BOUNDARY 



PACIFIC OCEAN 



Q^^K 




99 



Description of Relocation Channel of the Rio Grande 
Downstream From Presidio-Ojinaga 

THESE DESCRIPTIONS FORM A PART OF THE MAP ENTITLED * RELOCA- 
TION OF THE RIO GRANDE DOWNSTREAM FROM PRESIDIO-OJINAGA," 
DATED NOVEMBER 19, 1970 

Tracts 1,2, and 3 

The center of the new channel of the Rio Grande begins at Point 1, 
with coordinates North 665,605.00 feet and East 285,825.00 feet; 
thence 5,871.56 feet along a tangent bearing South 41°13 , 50 ,/ East 
to Point 21, the beginning of a curve, with coordinates North 661,189.- 
21 feet and East 289,694.89 feet; thence with a circular curve to the 
left with length of 1,023.51 feet and radius of 1,145.92 feet to Point 
22, the end of curve and relocation, with coordinates North 660,799.56 
feet and East 290,604.80 feet, The total length of the relocation of 
the Rio Grande is 6,895.07 feet, 

Tract 4 

The center of the new channel of the Rio Grande begins at Point 
1, with coordinates North 660,520.00 feet and East 293,290.00 feet; 
thence 2,649.84 feet along a tangent bearing South 42°56 , 08 // East 
to Point 2, the end of relocation with coordinates North 658,580.00 
feet and East 295,095.00 feet. 

Tracts 5, 6, and 7 

The center of the new channel of the Rio Grande begins at Point 
1, with coordinates North 658,023.27 feet and East 295,604.35 feet; 
thence 9.578.25 feet along a tangent bearing South 50°53'46" East 
to Point 35, the end of relocation with coordinates North 651,982.00 
feet and East 303,037.11 feet. 

The total length of the three reaches of the relocations of the Rio 
Grande is 19,123.16 feet, 

Coordinates are on Texas State Lambert Projection, South Central 
Zone. 



4. Treaty Between the United States of America and Mexico 
Respecting Utilization of Waters of the Colorado and 
Tijuana Rivers and of the Rio Grande. 

By the President of the United States of America 

a proclamation 

Whereas a treaty between the United States of America and the 
United Mexican States relating to the utilization of the waters of the 
Colorado and Tijuana Rivers, and of the Rio Grande (Rio Bravo) 
from Fort Quitman, Texas, to the Gulf of Mexico, was signed by their 
respective Plenipotentiaries in Washington on February 3, 1944, and 
a protocol supplementary to the said treaty was signed by their 
respective Plenipotentiaries in Washington on November 14, 1944, 
the originals of which treaty and protocol, in the English and Spanish 
languages, are word for word as follows:* 

The Government of the United States of America and the Govern- 
ment of the United Mexican States: animated by the sincere spirit of 
cordiality and friendly cooperation which happily governs the rela- 
tions between them; taking into account the fact that Articles VI and 
VII of the Treaty of Peace, Friendship and Limits between the United 
States of America and the United Mexican States signed at Guadalupe 
Hidalgo on February 2, 1848, and Article IV of the boundary treaty 
between the two countries signed at the City of Mexico December 30, 
1853 regulate the use of the waters of the Rio Grande (Rio Bravo) 
and the Colorado River for purposes of navigation only; considering 
that the utilization of these waters for other purposes is desirable in 
the interest of both countries, and desiring, moreover, to fix and de- 
limit the rights of the two countries with respect to the waters of the 
Colorado and Tijuana Rivers, and of the Rio Grande (Rio Bravo) 
from Fort Quitman. Texas. United States of America, to the Gulf of 
Mexico, in order to obtain the most complete and satisfactory utiliza- 
tion thereof, have resolved to conclude a treaty and for this purpose 
have named as their plenipotentiaries: 

The President of the United States of America: 

Cordell Hull, Secretary of State of the United State- of America, 
George S. Messersmith, Ambassador Extraordinary and Plenipoten- 
tiary of the United States of America in Mexico, and Lawrence M. 
Lawson, United States Commissioner, International Boundary 
Commission, United States and Mexico; and 

The President of the United Mexican States: 

Francisco Castillo Xajera. Ambassador Extraordinary and Pleni- 
potentiary of the United Mexican States in Washington, and Rafael 
Fernandez MacGregor, Mexican Commissioner, International Bound- 
ary Commission, United States and Mexico; who, having communi- 



1 Spanish text eliminated in this printed version. 

( ion 



102 

cated to each other their respective Full Powers and having found 
them in good and due form, have agreed upon the following: 

I. Preliminary Provisions 

ARTICLE 1 

For the purposes of this Treaty it shall be understood that: 

(a) "The United States" means the United States of America. 

(b) "Mexico" means the United Mexican States. 

(c) "The Commission" means the International Boundary and 
Water Commission, United States and Mexico, as described in Article 
2 of this Treaty. 

(d) "To divert" means the deliberate act of taking water from 
any channel in order to convey it elsewhere for storage, or to utilize 
it for domestic, agricultural, stockraising or industrial purposes 
whether this be done by means of dams across the channel, partition 
weirs, lateral intakes, pumps or any other methods. 

(e) "Point of diversion" means the place where the act of diverting 
the water is effected. 

(f) "Conservation capacity of storage reservoirs" means that part 
of their total capacity devoted to holding and conserving the water 
for disposal thereof as and when required, that is, capacity additional 
to that provided for silt retention and flood control. 

(g) "Flood discharges and spills" means the voluntary or involun- 
tary discharge of water for flood control as distinguished from releases 
for other purposes. 

(h) "Return flow" means that portion of diverted water that 
eventually finds its way back to the source from which it was diverted. 

(i) "Release" means the deliberate discharge of stored water for 
conveyance elsewhere or for direct utilization. 

(j) "Consumptive use" means the use of water by evaporation, 
plant transpiration or other manner whereby the water is consumed 
and does not return to its source of supply. In general it is measured 
by the amount of water diverted less the part thereof which returns 
to the stream. 

(k) "Lowest major international dam or reservoir" means the 
major international dam or reservoir situated farthest downstream. 

(1) "Highest major international dam or reservoir" means the 
major international dam or reservoir situated farthest upstream. 

ARTICLE 2 

The International Boundary Commission established pursuant to 
the provisions of the Convention between the United States and 
Mexico signed in Washington March 1, 1889 to facilitate the carrying 
out of the principles contained in the Treaty of November 12, 1884 
and to avoid difficulties occasioned by reason of the changes which 
take place in the beds of the Rio Grande ( Rio Bravo) and the Colorado 
River -hall hereafter be known as the International Boundary and 
Water Commission, United States and Mexico, which shall continue 
to function for the entire period during which the present Treaty shall 
continue in force. Accordingly, the term of the Convention of March 1, 



103 

1889 shall be considered to be indefinitely extended, and the Conven- 
tion of November 21, 1900 between the United States and Mexico 
regarding that Convention shall be considered completely terminated. 

The application of the present Treaty, the regulation and exercise of 
the rights and obligations which the two Governments assume there- 
under, and the settlement of all disputes to which its observance and 
execution may give rise are hereby entrusted to the International 
Boundary and Water Commission, which shall function in conformity 
with the powers and limitations set forth in this Treaty. 

The Commission shall in all respects have the status of an inter- 
national body, and shall consist of a United wStates Section and a 
Mexican Section. The head of each Section shall be an Engineer Com- 
missioner. Wherever there are provisions in this Treaty for joint action 
or joint agreement by the two Governments, or for the furnishing of 
reports, studies or plans to the two Governments, or similar provisions, 
it shall be understood that the particular matter in question shall be 
handled by or through the Department of State of the United States 
and the Ministry of Foreign Relations of Mexico. 

The Commission or either of its two sections may employ such as- 
sistants and engineering and legal advisers as it may deem necessary. 
Each Government shall accord diplomatic status to the Commissioner, 
designated by the other Government. The Commissioner, two princi- 
pal engineers, a legal adviser, and a secretary, designated by each 
Government as members of its Section of the Commission, shall be 
entitled in the territory of the other country to the privileges and im- 
munities appertaining to diplomatic officers. The Commission and its 
personnel may freely carry out their observations, studies and field 
work in the territory of either country. 

The jurisdiction of the Commission shall extend to the limitophe 
parts of the Rio Grande (Rio Bravo) and the Colorado River, to 
the land boundary between the two countries, and to works located 
upon their common boundary, each Section of the Commission retain- 
ing jurisdiction over that part of the works located within the limits 
of its own country. Neither Section shall assume 1 jurisdiction or 
control over works located within the limits of the country of the 
other without the express consent of the Government of the latter. 
The works constructed, acquired or used in fulfillment of the provisions 
of this Treaty and located wholly within the territorial limits of either 
country, although these works may be international in character, shall 
remain, except as herein otherwise specifically provided, under the ex- 
clusive jurisdiction and control of the Section of the Commission in 
whose country the works may be situated. 

The duties and powers vested in the Commission by this Treaty 
shall be in addition to those vested in the International Boundary 
Commission by the Convention of March 1. 1889 and other pertinent 
treaties and agreements in force between the two countries except as 
the provisions of any of them may be modified by the present Treaty. 

Each Government -hall bear the expenses incurred in the main- 
tenance of its Section of the Commission. The joint expenses, which 
may be incurred as agreed upon by the Commission, shall be borne 
equally by the two Governments. 



104 

ARTICLE 3 

In matters in which the Commission may be called upon to make 
provision for the joint use of international waters, the following order 
of preferences shall serve as a guide: 

1. Domestic and municipal uses. 

2. Agriculture and stock-raising. 

3. Electric power. 

4. Other industrial uses. 

5. Navigation. 

6. Fishing and hunting. 

7. Any other beneficial uses which may be determined by the 
Commission. 

All of the foregoing uses shall be subject- to any sanitary measures 
or works which may be mutually agreed upon by the two Govern- 
ments, which hereby agree to give preferential attention to the 
solution of all border sanitation problems. 

11. Rio Grande (Rio Bravo) 

ARTICLE 4 

The waters of the Rio Grande (Rio Bravo) between Fort Quit- 
man, Texas and the Gulf of Mexico are hereby allotted to the two 
countries in the following manner: 

A. To Mexico: 

(a) All of the waters reaching the main channel of the Rio 
Grande (Rio Bravo) from the San Juan and Alamo Rivers, 
including the return flow from the lands irrigated from the latter 
two rivers. 

(b) One-half of the flow in the main channel of the Rio Grande 
(Rio Bravo) below the lowest major international storage dam, 
so far as said flow is not specifically allotted under this Treat} r 
to either of the two countries. 

(c) Two-thirds of the flow reaching the main channel of the 
Rio Grande (Rio Bravo) from the Conchos, San Diego, San 
Rodrigo, Escondido and Salado Rivers and the Las Vacas Arroyo, 
subject to the provisions of subparagraph (c) of paragraph B of 
this Article. 

(d) One-half of all other flows not otherwise allotted by this 
Article occurring in the main channel of the Rio Grande (Rio 
Bravo), including the contributions from all the unmeasured 
tributaries, which are those not named in this Article, between 
Fort Quitman and the lowest major international storage dam. 

B. To the United States: 

(a) All of the waters reaching the main channel of the Rio 
Grande (Rio Bravo) from the Pecos and Devils Rivers, Good- 
enough Spring, and Alamito, Terlingua, San Felipe and Pinto 
('reeks. 

(b) One-half of the flow in the main channel of the Rio Grande 
(Rio Bravo) below the lowest major international storage (lam, 
so far as said flow is not specifically allotted under this Treaty 
to either of the two countries. 

(c) One-third of the flow reaching the main channel of the Rio 
Grande (Rio Bravo) from the Conchos, San Diego, San Rodrigo, 



105 

Escondido and Salado Rivers and the Las Vacas Arroyo, provided 
that this third shall not be less, as an average amount in evcles of 
five consecutive years, than 350,000 acre-feet (431,721,000 cubic 
meters) annually. The United States shall not acquire any right 
by the use of the waters of the tributaries named in this sub- 
paragraph, in excess of the said 350,000 acre-feet (431,721,000 
cubic meters) annually, except the right to use one-third of 
the flow reaching the Rio Grande (Rio Bravo) from said tribu- 
taries, although such one-third may be in excess of that amount. 
(d) One-half of all other flows not otherwise allotted by this 
Article occurring in the main channel of the Rio Grande (Rio 
Bravo), including the contributions from all the unmeasured 
tributaries, which are those not named in this Article, between 
Fort Quitman and the lowest major international storage dam. 
In the event of extraordinary drought or serious accident to the 
hydraulic systems on the measured Mexican tributaries, making it 
difficult for Mexico to make available the run-off of 350,000 acre-feet 
(431,721,000) cubic meters) annually, allotted in subparagraph (c) of 
paragraph B of this Article to the United States as the minimum 
contribution from the aforesaid Mexican tributaries, any deficiencies 
existing at the end of the aforesaid five-year cycle shall be made up 
in the following five-year cycle with water from the said measured 
tributaries. 

Whenever the conservation capacities assigned to the United States 
in at least two of the major international reservoirs, including the 
highest major reservoir, are filled with waters belonging to the United 
States, a cycle of five years shall be considered as terminated and all 
debits fully paid, whereupon a new five-year cycle shall commence. 

ARTICLE 5 

The two Governments agree to construct jointly, through their 
respective Sections of the Commission, the following works in the 
main channel of the Rio Grande (Rio Bravo) : 

I. The dams required for the conservation, storage and regulation 
of the greatest quantity of the annual flow of the river in a way to 
ensure the continuance of existing uses and the development of the 
greatest number of feasible projects, within the limits imposed by the 
water allotments specified. 

II. The dams and other joint works required for the diversion of the 
flow of the Rio Grande (Rio Bravo). 

One of the storage dams shall be constructed in the section between 
Santa Helena Canyon and the mouth of the Pecos River; one in the 
section between Eagle Pa^s and Laredo, Texas (Piedras Xegras and 
Xuevo Laredo in Mexico); and a third in tin 4 section between Laredo 
and Rome, Texas (Xuevo Laredo and San Pedro de Roma in Mexico). 
One or more of the stipulated dams may be omitted, and others than 
those enumerated may be built , in either case as may he determined by 
the Commission, subject to the approval of the two Governments. 

In planning the construction of such dams the Commission shall 
determine: 

(a) r I ne most feasible site^; 

(1)) The maximum feasible reservoir capacity at each site; 



106 

(c) The conservation capacity required by each country at each site, 
taking into consideration the amount and regimen of its allotment of 
water and its contemplated uses; 

(d) The capacity required for retention of silt ; 

(e) The capacity required for flood control. 

The conservation and silt capacities of each reservoir shall be as- 
signed to each country in the same proportion as the capacities re- 
quired by each country in such reservoir for conservation purposes. 
Each country shall have an undivided interest in the flood control 
capacity of each reservoir. 

The construction of the international storage dams shall start within 
two years following the approval of the respective plans by the two 
Governments. The works shall begin with the construction of the 
lowest major international storage dam, but works in the upper 
reaches of the river may be constructed simultaneously. The lowest 
major international storage dam shall be completed within a period 
of eight years from the date of the entry into force of this Treaty. 

The construction of the dams and other joint works required for the 
diversion of the flows of the river shall be initiated on the dates 
recommended by the Commission and approved by the two 
Governments. 

The cost of construction, operation and maintenance of each of the 
international storage dams shall be prorated between the two Govern- 
ments in proportion to the capacity allotted to each country for 
conservation purposes in the reservoir at such dam. 

The cost of construction, operation and maintenance of each of the 
dams and other joint works required for the diversion of the flows of 
the river shall be prorated between the two Governments in proportion 
to the benefits which the respective countries receive therefrom, as 
determined by the Commission and approved by the two 
Governments. 

ARTICLE 6 

The Commission shall study, investigate, and prepare plans for 
flood control works, where and when necessary, other than those 
referred to in Article 5 of this Treaty, on the Rio Grande (Rio Bravo) 
from Fort Quitman, Texas to the Gulf of Mexico. These works may 
include levees along the river, floodways and grade-control structures, 
and works for the canalization, rectification and artificial channeling 
of reaches of the river. The Commission shall report to the two 
Governments the works which should be built, the estimated cost 
thereof, the part of the works to be constructed by each Government, 
and the part of the works to be operated and maintained by each 
Section of the Commission. Each Government agrees to construct, 
through its Section of the Commission, such works as may be recom- 
mended by the Commission and approved by the two Governments. 
Each Government shall pay the cost9 of the works constructed by it 
and the costs of operation and maintenance of the part of the works 
assigned to it for such purpose. 

ARTICLE 7 

The Commission shall study, investigate 1 and prepares plans for 

plants for generating hydro-electric energy which it may be feasible 



107 

to construct at the international storage dams on the Rio Grande 
(Rio Bravo;. The Commission shall report to the two Governments 
in a Minute the works which should be built, the estimated cost 
thereof, and the part of the works to be constructed by each Govern- 
ment. Each Government agrees to construct, through its Section of 
the Commission, such works as may be recommended by the Com- 
mission and approved by the two Governments. Both Governments, 
through their respective Sections of the Commission, shall operate 
and maintain jointly such hydroelectric plants. Each Government 
shall pay half the cost of the construction, operation and maintenance 
of such plants, and the energy generated shall be assigned to each 
country in like proportion. 

ARTICLE 8 

The two Governments recognize that both countries have a com- 
mon interest in the conservation and storage of waters in the inter- 
national reservoirs and in the maximum use of these structures for 
the purpose of obtaining the most beneficial, regular and constant 
use of the waters belonging to them. Accordingly, within the year 
following the placing in operation of the first of the major international 
storage dams which is constructed, the Commission shall submit to 
each Government for its approval, regulations for the storage, con- 
veyance and delivery of the waters of the Rio Grande (Rio Bravo) 
from Fort Quitman, Texas to the Gulf of Mexico. Such regulations 
may be modified, amended or supplemented when necessary by the 
Commission, subject to the approval of the two Governments. The 
following genera] rules shall severally govern until modified or amended 
by agreement of the Commission, with the approval of the two 
Governments: 

(a) Storage in all major international reservoirs above the lowest 
shall be maintained at the maximum possible water level, consistent 
with flood control, irrigation use and power requirements. 

(b) Inflows to each reservoir shall be credited to each country in 
accordance with the ownership of such inflows. 

(c) In any reservoir the ownership of water belonging to the country 
whose conservation capacity therein is filled, and in excess of that 
needed to keep it filled, shall pass to the other country to the extent 
that such country may have unfilled conservation capacity, except 
that one country may at its option temporarily use the conservation 
capacity of the other country not currently being used in any of the 
upper reservoirs; provided that in the event of flood discharge or spill 
occurring while one country is using the conservation capacity of the 
other, all of such flood discharge or spill shall be charged to the country 
using the other's capacity, and all inflow shall be credited to the other 
country until the flood discharge or spill ceases or until the capacity 
of the other country becomes filled with its own water. 

(d) Reservoir losses shall be charged in proportion to the owner- 
ship of water in storage. Releases from any reservoir shall be charged 
to the country requesting them, except that releases for the generation 
of electrical energy, or other common purpose, shall be charged in 
proportion to the ownership of water in storage. 

(e) Flood discharges and spills from the upper reservoirs shall be 
divided in the same proportion as the ownership of the inflows oc- 



76-432 O - 76 



108 

curring at the time of such flood discharges and spills, except as pro- 
vided in subparagraph (c) of this Article. Flood discharges and spills 
from the lowest reservoir shall be divided equally, except that one 
country, with the consent of the Commission, may use such part of the 
share of the other country as is not used by the latter country. 

(f) Either of the two countries may avail itself, whenever it so 
desires, of any water belonging to it and stored in the international 
reservoirs, provided that the water so taken is for direct beneficial 
use or for storage in other reservoirs. For this purpose the Commis- 
sioner of the respective country shall give appropriate notice to the 
Commission, which shall prescribe the proper measures for the op- 
portune furnishing of the water. 

ARTICLE 9 

(a) The channel of the Rio Grande (Rio Bravo) may be used by 
either of the two countries to convey water belonging to it. 

(b) Either of the two countries may, at any point on the main 
channel of the river from Fort Quitman, Texas to the Gulf of Mexico, 
divert and use the water belonging to it and may for this purpose 
construct any necessary works. However, no such diversion or use, not 
existing on the date this Treaty enters into force, shall be permitted 
in either country, nor shall works be constructed for such purpose, 
until the Section of the Commission in whose country the diversion or 
use is proposed has made a finding that the water necessary for such 
diversion or use is available from the share of that country, unless the 
Commission has agreed to a greater diversion or use as provided by 
paragraph (d) of this Article. The proposed use and the plans for the 
diversion works to be constructed in connection therewith shall be 
previously made known to the Commission for its information. 

(c) Consumptive uses from the main stream and from the un- 
measured tributaries below Fort Quitman shall be charged against the 
share of the country making them. 

(d) The Commission shall have the power to authorize either 
country to divert and use water not belonging entirely to such country, 
when the water belonging to the other country can be diverted and 
used without injury to the latter and can be replaced at some other 
point on the river. 

(e) The Commission shall have the power to authorize temporary 
diversion and use by one country of water belonging to the other, 
when the latter does not need it or is unable to use it, provided 
that such authorization or the use of such water shall not establish 
any right to continue to divert it. 

(f) In case of the occurrence of an extraordinary drought in one 
country with an abundant supply of water in the other country, 
water stored in the international storage reservoirs and belonging 
to the country enjoying such abundant water supply may be with- 
drawn, with the consent of the Commission, for the use of the country 
undergoing the drought. 

(g) Each country shall have the right to divert from the main 
channel of the river any amount of water, including the water be- 
longing to the other country, for the purpose of generating hydro- 
electric power, provided that such diversion causes no injury to the 



109 

other country and does not interfere with the international genera- 
tion of power and that the quantities not returning directly to the 
river are charged against the share of the country making the diver- 
sion. The feasibility of such diversions not existing on the date this 
Treaty enters into force shall be determined by the Commission, 
which shall also determine the amount of water consumed, such water 
to be charged against the country making the diversion. 

(h) In case either of the two countries shall construct works for 
diverting into the main channel of the Rio Grande (Rio Bravo) 
or its tributaries waters that do not at the time this Treaty enters 
into force contribute to the flow of the Rio Grande (Rio Bravo) 
such water shall belong to the country making such diversion. 

(i) Main stream channel losses shall be charged in proportion to 
the ownership of water, being conveyed in the channel at the times 
and places of the losses. 

(j) The Commission shall keep a record of the waters belonging to 
each country and of those that may be available at a given moment, 
taking into account the measurement of the allotments, the regula- 
tion of the waters in storage, the consumptive uses, the withdrawals, 
the diversions, and the losses. For this purpose the Commission shall 
construct, operate and maintain on the main channel of the Rio 
Grande (Rio Bravo), and each Section shall construct, operate and 
maintain on the measured tributaries in its own country, all the gaging 
stations and mechanical apparatus necessary for the purpose of mak- 
ing computations and of obtaining the necessary data for such record. 
The information with respect to the diversions and consumptive uses 
on the unmeasured tributaries shall be furnished to the Commission 
by the appropriate Section. The cost of construction of any new gaging 
stations located on the main channel of the Rio Grande (Rio Bravo) 
shall be borne equally by the two Governments. The operation and 
maintenance of all gaging stations or the cost of such operation and 
maintenance shall be apportioned between the two Sections in ac- 
cordance with determinations to be made by the Commission. 

III. Colorado River 

article 10 

Of the waters of the Colorado River, from any and all sources, 
there are allotted to Mexico: 

(a) A guaranteed annual quantity of 1,500,000 acre-feet (1,850,- 
234,000 cubic meters) to be delivered in accordance with the pro- 
visions of Article 15 of this Treaty. 

(b) Any other quantities arriving at the Mexican points of diver- 
sion, with the understanding that in any year in which, as determined 
by the United States Section, there exists a surplus of waters of the 
Colorado River in excess of the amount necessary to supply uses in 
the United States and the guaranteed quantity of 1 ,500, 000 acre-feet 
(1,850,234,000 cubic meters) annually to Mexico, the United States 
undertakes to deliver to Mexico, in the manner set out in Article 15 
of this Treaty, additional waters of the Colorado River system to pro- 
vide a total quantity not to exceed 1,700,000 acre-feet (2,096,931,000 



110 

cubic meters) a year. Mexico shall acquire no right beyond that pro- 
vided by this subparagraph by the use of the waters of the Colorado 
River system, for any purpose whatsoever, in excess of 1,500,000 
acre-feet (1,850,234,000 cubic meters) annually. 

In the event of extraordinary drought or serious accident to the 
irrigation system in the United States, thereby making it difficult 
for the United States to deliver the guaranteed quantity of 1,500,000 
acre-feet (1,850,234,000 cubic meters) a year, the water allotted to 
Mexico under subparagraph (a) of this Article will be reduced in 
the same proportion as consumptive uses in the United States are 
reduced. 

ARTICLE 11 

(a) The United States shall deliver all waters allotted to Mexico 
wherever these waters may arrive in the bed of the limitrophe section 
of the Colorado River, with the exceptions hereinafter provided. Such 
waters shall be made up of the waters of the said river, wdiatever their 
origin, subject to the provisions of the following paragraphs of this 
Article. 

(b) Of the waters of the Colorado River allotted to Mexico by 
subparagraph (a) of Article 10 of this Treaty, the United States 
shall deliver, wherever such waters mav arrive in the limitrophe sec- 
tion of the river, 1,000,000 acre-feet ," (1,233,489,000 cubic meters) 
annually from the time the Davis dam and reservoir are placed in 
operation until January 1, 1980 and thereafter 1,125,000 acre-feet 
(1,387,675,000 cubic meters) annually, except that, should the main 
diversion structure referred to in subparagraph (a) of Article 12 of 
this Treaty be located entirely in Mexico and should Mexico so 
request, the United States shall deliver a quantity of water not 
exceeding 25,000 acre-feet (30,837,000 cubic meters) annually, unless 
a larger quantity may be mutually agreed upon, at a point, to be 
likewise mutually agreed upon, on the international land boundary 
near San Luis, Sonora, in which event the quantities of 1,000,000 
acre-feet (1,233,489,000 cubic meters) and 1,125,000 acre-feet (1,387,- 
675,000 cubic meters) provided hereinabove as deliverable in the 
limitrophe section of the river shall be reduced by the quantities to 
be delivered in the year concerned near San Luis, Sonora. 

(c) During the period from the time the Davis dam and reservoir 
are placed in operation until January 1, 1980, the United States 
shall also deliver to Mexico annually, of the water allotted to it, 
500,000 acre-feet (616,745,000 cubic meters), and thereafter the 
United States shall deliver annually 375,000 acre-feet (462,558,000 
cubic meters), at the international boundary line, by means of the 
All-American Canal and a canal connecting the lower end of the 
Pilot Knob Wasteway with the Alamo Canal or with any other 
Mexican canal which may be substituted for the Alamo Canal. In 
either event the deliveries shall be made at an operating water surface 
elevation not higher than that of the Alamo Canal at the point where 
it crossed the international boundary line in the year 1943. 

(d) All the deliveries of water specified above shall be made subject 
to the provisions of Article 15 of this Treaty. 



Ill 



ARTICLE 12 



The two Governments agree to construct the following works: 

(a) Mexico shall construct at its expense, within a period of five 
years from the date of the entry into force of this Treaty, a main 
diversion structure below the point where the northernmost part of 
the international land boundary line intersects the Colorado River. 
If such diversion structure is located in the limitrophe section of the 
river, its location, design and construction shall be subject to the 
approval of the Commission. The Commission shall thereafter main- 
tain and operate the structure as the expense of Mexico. Regardless 
of where such diversion structure is located, there shall simultaneously 
be constructed such levees, interior drainage facilities and other 
works, or improvements to existing works, as in the opinion of the 
Commission shall be necessary to protect lands within the United 
States against damage from such floods and seepage as might result 
from the construction, operation and maintenance of this diversion 
structure. These protective works shall be constructed, operated and 
maintained at the expense of Mexico by the respective Sections of the 
Commission, or under their supervision, each within the territory 
of its own country. 

(b) The United States, within a period of five years from the date 
of the entry into force of this Treaty, shall construct in its own 
territory and at it> expense, and thereafter operate and maintain 
at its expense, the Davis storage dam and reservoir, a part of the 
capacity of which shall be used to make possible the regulation at 
the boundary of the waters to be delivered to Mexico in accordance 
with the prov sions of Article 15 of this Treaty. 

(c) The United States shall construct or acquire in its own territory 
the works that may be necessary to convey a part of the waters of 
the Colorado River allotted to Mexico to the Mexican diversion 
points on the international land boundary line referred to in this 
Treaty. Among these works shall be included: the canal and other 
works necessary to convey water from the lower end of the Pilot 
Knob Wasteway to the international boundary, and, should Mexico 
request it, a canal to connect the main diversion structure referred 
to in subparagraph (a) of this Article, if this diversion structure should 
be built in the limitrophe section of the river, with the Mexican 
system of canals at a point to be agreed upon by the Commission on 
the international land boundary near San Luis, Sonora. Such works 
shall be constructed or acquired and operated and maintained by the 
United States Section at the expense of Mexico. Mexico shall also 
pay the costs of any sites or rights of way required for such works. 

(d) The Commission shall construct, operate and maintain in the 
limitrophe section of the Colorado River, and each Section shall 
construct, operate and maintain in the territory of it- own country 
on the Colorado River below Imperial Dam and on all other carrying 
facilities used for the delivery of water to Mexico, all necessary 
gaging stations and other measuring devices for the purpose of keeping 
a complete record of the waters delivered to Mexico and of the flows 
of the river. All data obtained ;i- to such deliveries and How- -hall 
be periodically compiled and exchanged between the two Section-. 



112 

ARTICLE 13 

The Commission shall study, investigate and prepare plans for 
flood control on the Lower Colorado River between Imperial Dam 
and the Gulf of California, in both the United States and Mexico, 
and shall, in a Minute, report to the two Governments the works 
which should be built, the estimated cost thereof, and the part of the 
works to be constructed by each Government. The two Governments 
agree to construct, through their respective Sections of the Commis- 
sion, such works as may be recommended by the Commission and 
approved by the two Governments, each Government to pay the 
costs of the works constructed by it. The Commission shall likewise 
recommend the parts of the works to be operated and maintained 
jointly by the Commission and the parts to be operated and main- 
tained by each Section. The two Governments agree to pay in equal 
shares the cost of joint operation and maintenance, and each Govern- 
ment agrees to pay the cost of operation and maintenance of the 
works assigned to it for such purpose. 

ARTICLE 14 

In consideration of the use of the All-American Canal for the deliv- 
ery to Mexico, in the manner provided in Articles 11 and 15 of this 
Treaty, of a part of its allotment of the waters of the Colorado River, 
Mexico shall pay to the United States: 

(a) A proportion of the costs actually incurred in the construction of 
Imperial Dam and the Imperial Dam-Pilot Knob section of the All- 
American Canal, this proportion and the method and terms of repay- 
ment to be determined by the two Governments, which, for this pur- 
pose, shall take into consideration the proportionate uses of these 
facilities by the two countries, these determinations to be made as 
soon as Davis dam and reservoir are placed in operation. 

(b) Annually, a proportionate part of the total costs of maintenance 
and operation of such facilities, these costs to be prorated between the 
two countries in proportion to the amount of water delivered annually 
through such facilities for use in each of the two countries. 

In the event that revenues from the sale of hydro-electric power 
which may be generated at Pilot Knob become available for the amor- 
tization of part or all of the costs of the facilities named in subpara- 
graph (a) of this Article, the part that Mexico should pay of the costs 
of said facilities shall be reduced or repaid in the same proportion as 
the balance of the total costs are reduced or repaid. It is understood 
that any such revenue shall not become available until the cost of any 
works which may be constructed for the generation of hydro-electric 
power at said location has been fully amortized from the revenues 
derived therefrom. 

ARTICLE 15 

A. The water allotted in subparagraph (a) of Article 10 of this 
Treaty shall be delivered to Mexico at the points of delivery specified 
in Article 1 1 , in accordance with the following two annual schedules of 
deliveries by months, which the Mexican Section shall formulate and 
present to the Commission before the beginning of each calendar year: 



113 

Schedule I 

Schedule I shall cover the delivery, in the limitrophe section of 
the Colorado River, of 1,000,000 acre-feet (1,233.489,000 cubic meters) 
of water each year from the date Davis dam and reservoir are placed 
in operation until January 1,1980 and the delivery of 1,125,000 acre- 
feet (1,387,675,000 cubic meters; of water each year thereafter. This 
schedule shall be formulated subject to the following limitations: 

With reference to the 1,000,000 acre-foot (1,233,489,000 cubic 
meter) quantity: 

(a) During the months of January, February. October, November 
and December the prescribed rate of delivery shall be not less than 
600 cubic feet (17.0 cubic meters) nor more than 3,500 cubic feet 
(99.1 cubic meters) per second. 

(b) During the remaining months of the year the prescribed rate 
of delivery shall be not less than 1,000 cubic feet (28.3 cubic meters) 
nor more than 3,500 cubic feet (99.1 cubic meters) per second. 

With reference to the 1,125,000 acre-foot (1,387,675,000 cubic 
meter) quantity: 

(a) During the months of January, February, October, November 
and December the prescribed rate of delivery shall be not less than 
675 cubic feet (19.1 cubic meters) nor more than 4,000 cubic feet 
(113.3 cubic meters) per second. 

(b) During the remaining months of the year the prescribed rate 
of delivery shall be not le<> than 1,125 cubic feet (31.9 cubic meters) 
nor more than 4,000 cubic feet (113.3 cubic meters) per second. 

Should deliveries of water be made at a point on the land boundary 
near San Luis, Sonora, as provided for in Article 11, such deliveries 
shall be made under a sub-schedule to be formulated and furnished 
by the Mexican Section. The quantities and monthly rates of deliveries 
under such sub-schedule shall be in proportion to those specified for 
Schedule I, unless otherwise agreed upon by the Commission. 

Schedule II 

Schedule II shall cover the delivery at the boundary line by means 
of the Ail-American Canal of 500,000 acre-feet (616,745,000 cubic 
meters) of water each year from the date Davis dam and reservoir 
are placed in operation until January 1, 1980 and the delivery of 
375,000 acre-feet (462,558,000 cubic^ meters) of water each year 
thereafter. This schedule shall be formulated subject to the following 
limitations: 

With reference to the 500,000 acre-foot (616,745,000 cubic meter) 
quantity : 

(a) During the months of January, February, October, November 
and December the prescribed rate of delivery shall be not less than 
300 cubic feet (8.5 cubic meters) nor more than 2,000 cubic feet 
(56.6 cubic meters) per second. 

(b) During the remaining months of the year the prescribed 
rate of delivery shall be not le>s than 500 cubic feet (14.2 cubic 
meters) nor more than 2,000 cubic feet (56.6 cubic meter-) per second. 

With reference to the 375,000 acre-foot (462,558,000 cubic meter) 
quantity: 

(a) During the months of January, February, October, November 
and December the prescribed rate of delivery shall be not less than 
225 cubic feet (6.4 cubic meters) nor more than 1,500 cubic feet 
(42.5 cubic meters) per second. 



114 

(b) During the remaining months of the year the prescribed rate 
of delivery shall be not less than 375 cubic feet (10.6 cubic meters) 
nor more than 1,500 cubic feet (42.5 cubic meters) per second. 

B. The United States shall be under no obligation to deliver, 
through the All-American Canal, more than 500,000 acre-feet (616,- 
745,000 cubic meters) annually from the date Davis dam and reservoir 
are placed in operation until January 1, 1980 or more than 375,000 
acre-feet (462,558,000 cubic meters) annually thereafter. If, by 
mutual agreement, any part of the quantities of water specified in 
this paragraph are delivered to Mexico at points on the land boundary 
otherwise than through the All-American Canal, the above quantities 
of water and the rates of deliveries set out under Schedule II this 
Article shall be correspondingly diminished. • 

C. The United States shall have the option of delivering, at the point 
on the land boundary mentioned in subparagraph (c) of Article 11, 
any part or all of the water to be delivered at that point under Schedule 
II of this Article during the months of January, February, October, 
November and December of each year, from any source whatsoever, 
with the understanding that the total specified annual quantities to be 
delivered through the All-American Canal shall not be reduced because 
of the exercise of this option, unless such reduction be requested by the 
Mexican Section, provided that the exercise of this option shall not 
have the effect of increasing the total amount of scheduled water to be 
delivered to Mexico. 

D. In any year in which there shall exist in the river water in excess 
of that necessary to satisfy the requirements in the United States and 
the guaranteed quantity of 1,500,000 acre-feet (1,850,234,000 cubic 
meters) allotted to Mexico, the United States hereby declares its 
intention to cooperate with Mexico in attempting to supply additional 
quantities of water through the All-American Canal as such additional 
quantities are desired by Mexico, if such use of the Canal and facilities 
will not be detrimental to the United States, provided that the de- 
livery of any additional quantities through the All-American Canal 
shall not have the effect of increasing the total scheduled deliveries to 
Mexico. Mexico hereby declares its intention to cooperate with the 
United States by attempting to curtail deliveries of water through the 
All-American Canal in years of limited supply, if such curtailment can 
be accomplished without detriment to Mexico and is necessary to 
allow full use of all available water supplies, provided that such cur- 
tailment shall not have the effect of reducing the total scheduled de- 
liveries of water to Mexico. 

E. In any year in which there shall exist in the river water in excess 
of that necessary to satisfy the requirements in the United States and 
the guaranteed^ quantity 'of 1,500,000 acre-feet (1,850,243,000 cubic 
meters) allotted to Mexico, the United States Section shall so inform 
the Mexican Section in order that the latter may schedule such surplus 
water to complete a quantity up to a maximum of 1,700,000 acre-feet 
(2,096,931,000 cubic meters). In this circumstance the total quantities 
to be delivered under Schedules \ and II shall he increased in proportion 
to their respective total quantities and the two schedules thus in- 
creased shall be subject to the same limitations as those established 
for each under paragraph A of this Article. 



115 

F. Subject to the limitations as to rates of deliveries and total quan- 
tities set out in Schedules I and II, Mexico shall have the right, upon 
thirty days notice in advance to the United States Section, to increase 
or decrease each monthly quantity prescribed by those schedules by 
not more than 20% of the monthly quantity. 

G. The total quantity of water to be delivered under Schedule I of 
paragraph A of this Article may be increased in any year if the amount 
to be delivered under Schedule II is correspondingly reduced and if 
the limitations as to rates of delivery under each schedule are cor- 
respondingly increased and reduced. 

IV. Tijuana River 

ARTICLE 16 

In order to improve existing uses and to assure any feasible further 
development, the Commission shall study and investigate, and shall 
submit to the two Governments for their approval : 

(1) Recommendations for the equitable distribution between the 
two countries of the waters of the Tijuana River system; 

(2) Plans for storage and flood control to promote and develop 
domestic, irrigation and other feasible uses of the waters of this 
system ; 

(3) An estimate of the cost of the proposed works and the manner 
in which the construction of such works or the cost thereof should 
be divided between the two Governments; 

(4) Recommendations regarding the parts of the works to be 
operated and maintained by the Commission and the parts to be 
operated and maintained by each Section. 

The two Governments through their respective Sections of the 
Commission shall construct such of the proposed works as are approved 
by both Governments, shall divide the work to be done or the cost 
thereof, and shall distribute between the two countries the waters 
of the Tijuana River system in the proportions approved by the two 
Governments. The two Governments agree to pay in equal shares 
the costs of joint operation and maintenance of the works involved, 
and each Government agrees to pay the cost of operation and main- 
tenance of the works assigned to it for such purpose. 

V. General Provisions 

ARTICLE 17 

The use of the channels of the international rivers for the discharge 
of flood or other excess waters shall be free and not subject to limita- 
tion by either country, and neither country shall have any claim 
against the other in respect of any damage 1 caused by such use. Each 
Government agrees to furnish the other Government , as far in advance 
as practicable 1 , any information it may have in regard to such extra- 
ordinary discharges of water from reservoirs and Hood Hows on its 
own territory as may produce floods on the 1 territory of the other. 

Each Government declares its intention to operate 1 its storage 
dams in such manner, consistent witli the normal operations of its 
hydraulic systems, as to avoid, as far as feasible, material damage 
in the territory of the other. 



116 



ARTICLE 18 



Public use of water surface of lakes formed by international dams 
shall, when not harmful to the services rendered by such dams, be 
free and common to both countries, subject to the police regulations 
of each country in its territory, to such general regulations as may 
appropriately be prescribed and enforced by the Commission with 
the approval of the two Governments for the purpose of the applica- 
tion of the provisions of this Treaty, and to such regulations as may 
appropriately be prescribed and enforced for the same purpose by 
each Section of the Commission with respect to the areas and borders 
of such parts of those lakes as lie within its territory. Neither Govern- 
ment shall use for military purposes such water surface situated 
within the territory of the other country except by express agreement 
between the two Governments. 

ARTICLE 19 

The two Governments shall conclude such special agreements as 
may be necessary to regulate the generation, development and dis- 
position of electric power at international plants, including the 
necessary provisions for the export of electric current. 

ARTICLE 20 

The two Governments shall, through their respective Sections of 
the Commission, carry out the construction of works allotted to them. 
For this purpose the respective Sections of the Commission may make 
use of any competent public or private agencies in accordance with 
the laws of the respective countries. With respect to such works as 
either Section of the Commission may have to execute on the territory 
of the other, it shall, in the execution of such works, observe the laws 
of the place where such works are located or carried out, with the 
exceptions hereinafter stated. 

All materials, implements, equipment and repair parts intended 
for the construction, operation and maintenance of such works shall 
be exempt from import and export customs duties. The whole of the 
personnel employed either directly or indirectly on the construction, 
operation or maintenance of the works may pass freely from one 
country to the other for the purpose of going to and from the place 
of location of the works, without any immigration restrictions, pass- 
ports or labor requirements. Each Government shall furnish, through 
its own Section of the Commission, convenient means of identification 
to the personnel employed by it on the aforesaid works and verifica- 
tion certificates covering all materials, implements, equipment and 
repair parts intended for the works. 

Each Government shall assume responsibility for and shall adjust 
exclusively in accordance with its own laws all claims arising within 
its territory in connection with the construction, operation or mainte- 
nance of the whole or of any part of the works herein agreed upon, 
or of any works which may, in the execution of this Treaty, be agreed 
upon in the future. 



117 



ARTICLE 21 



The construction of the international dams and the formation of 
artificial lakes shall produce no change in the fluvial international 
boundary, which shall continue to be governed by existing treaties 
and conventions in force between the two countries. 

The Commission shall, with the approval of the two Governments, 
establish in the artificial lakes, by buoys or by other suitable markers, 
a practical and convenient line to provide for the exercise of the juris- 
diction and control vested by this Treaty in the Commission and its 
respective Sections. Such line shall also mark the boundary for the 
application of the customs and police regulations of each country. 

ARTICLE 22 

The provisions of the Convention between the United States and 
Mexico for the rectification of the Rio Grande (Rio Bravo) in the 
El Paso-Juarez Valley signed on February 1, 1933, shall govern so 
far as delimitation of the boundary, distribution of jurisdiction and 
sovereignty, and relations with private owners are concerned, in any 
places where works for the artificial channeling, canalization or 
rectification of the Rio Grande (Rio Bravo) and the Colorado River 
are carried out. 

ARTICLE 23 

The two Governments recognize the public interest attached to 
the works required for the execution and performance of this Treaty 
and agree to acquire, in accordance with their respective domestic 
laws, any private property that may be required for the construction 
of the said works, including the main structures and their appurte- 
nances and the construction materials therefor, and for the operation 
and maintenance thereof, at the cost of the country within which 
the property is situated, except as may be otherwise specifically 
provided in this Treaty. 

Each Section of the Commission shall determine the extent and 
location of any private property to be acquired within it^ own country 
and shall make the necessary requests upon it> Government for the 
acquisition of such property. 

The Commission shall determine the cases in which it shall become 
necessary to locate works for the conveyance of water or electrical 
energy and for the servicing of any such works, for the benefit of 
either of the two countries, in the territory of the other country, in 
order that such works can be built pursuant to agreement between 
the two Governments. Such works shall be subject to the jurisdiction 
and supervision of the Section of the Commission within whose 
country they are located. 

Construction of the works built in pursuance of the provisions of 
this Treaty shall not confer upon either of the two countries any 
rights either of property or of jurisdiction over any part whatsoever 
of the territory of the other. These works shall be part of the territory 
and be the property of the country wherein they are situated. How- 
ever, in the case of any incidents occurring on works constructed 
across the limitrophe part of a river and with supports on both 
banks, the jurisdiction of each country shall be limited by the center 



118 

line of such works, which shall be marked by the Commission, with- 
out thereby changing the international boundary. 

Each Government shall retain, through its own Section of the 
Commission and within the limits and to the extent necessary to 
effectuate the provisions of this Treaty, direct ownership, control 
and jurisdiction within its own territory and in accordance with its 
own laws, over all real property — including that within the channel 
of any river — rights of way and rights in rem, that it may be necessary 
to enter upon and occupy for the construction, operation or mainte- 
nance of all the works constructed, acquired or used pursuant to this 
Treaty. Furthermore, each Government shall similarly acquire and 
retain in its own possession the titles, control and jurisdiction over 
such works. 

ARTICLE 24 

The International Boundary and Water Commission shall have, 
in addition to the powers and duties otherwise specifically provided 
in this Treaty, the following powers and duties : 

(a) To initiate and carry on investigations and develop plans for 
the works which are to be constructed or established in accordance 
with the provisions of this and other treaties or agreements in force 
between the two Governments dealing with boundaries and inter- 
national waters; to determine, as to such works, their location, size, 
kind and characteristic specifications; to estimate the cost of such 
works; and to recommend the division of such costs between the two 
Governments, the arrangements for the furnishing of the necessary 
funds, and the dates for the beginning of the works, to the extent 
that the matters mentioned in this subparagraph are not otherwise 
covered by specific provisions of this or any other Treaty. 

(b) To construct the works agreed upon or to supervise their 
construction and to operate and maintain such works or to supervise 
their operation and maintenance, in accordance with the respective 
domestic laws of each country. Each section shall have, to the extent 
necessary to give effect to the provisions of this Treaty, jurisdiction 
over the works constructed exclusively in the territory of its country 
whenever such works shall be connected with or shall directly affect 
the execution of the provisions of this Treaty. 

(c) In general to exercise and discharge the specific powers and 
duties entrusted to the Commission by this and other treaties and 
agreements in force between the two countries, and to carry into 
execution and prevent the violation of the provisions of those treaties 
and agreements. The authorities of each country shall aid and support 
the exercise and discharge of these powers and duties, and each 
Commissioner shall invoke when necessary the jurisdiction of the 
courts or other appropriate agencies of his country to aid in the 
execution and enforcement of these powers and duties. 

(d) To settle all differences that may arise between the two Govern- 
ments with respect to the interpretation or application of this Treaty, 
subject to the approval of the two Governments. In any case in which 
the Commissioners do not reach an agreement, they shall so inform 
their respective governments reporting their respective opinions and 
the grounds therefor and the points upon which they differ, for dis- 
cussion and adjustment of the difference through diplomatic channels 



119 

and for application where proper of the general or special agreements 
which the two Governments have concluded for the settlement of 
controversies. 

(e) To furnish the information requested of the Commissioners 
jointly by the two Governments on matters within their jurisdiction. 
In the event that the request is made by one Government alone, the 
Commissioner of the other Government must have the express 
authorization of his Government in order to comply with such request. 

(f) The Commission shall construct, operate and maintain upon 
the limitrophe parts of the international streams, and each Section 
shall severally construct, operate and maintain upon the parts of 
che international streams and their tributaries within the boundaries 
of its own country, such stream gaging stations as may be needed to 
provide the hydrographic data necessary or convenient for the 
proper functioning of this Treaty. The data so obtained shall be 
compiled and periodically exchanged between the two Sections. 

(g) The Commission shall submit annually a joint report to the 
two Governments on the matters in its charge. The Commission shall 
also submit to the two Governments joint reports on general or any 
particular matters at such other times as it may deem necessary or 
as may be requested by the two Governments. 

ARTICLE 25 

Except as otherwise specifically provided in this Treaty, Articles 
III and VII of the Convention of March 1, 1889 shall govern the 
proceedings of the Commission in carrying out the provisions of this 
Treaty. Supplementary thereto the Commission shall establish a 
body of rules and regulations to govern its procedure, consistent with 
the pro visions of this Treaty and of Articles IT J and VI 1 of the Conven- 
tion of March 1 , 1889 and subject to the approval of both Governments. 

Decisions of the Commission shall be recorded in the form of 
Minutes done in duplicate in the English and Spanish languages, 
signed by each Commissioner and attested by the Secretaries, and 
copies thereof forwarded to each Government within three days 
after being signed. Except where the specific approval of the two 
Governments i> required by any provision of this Treaty, if one of 
the Governments fails to communicate to the Commission it< ap- 
proval or disapproval of a decision of the Commission within thirty 
days reckoned from the date of the Minute in which it shall have 
been pronounced, the Minute in question and the decisions which 
it contains shall be considered to be approved by that Government. 
The Commissioners, within the limits of their respective jurisdictions, 
shall execute the decisions of the Commission that are approved by 
both Governments. 

If either Government disapproves a decision of the Commission 
the two Governments shall take cognizance of the matter, and if an 
agreement regarding such matter is reached between the two Govern- 
ments, the agreement shall be communicated to the Commissioners, 
who shall take such further proceedings as may be necessary to 
carry out such agreement. 



120 
VI. Transitory Provisions 

ARTICLE 26 

During a period of eight years from the date of the entry into 
force of this Treaty, or until the beginning of operation of the lowest 
major international reservoir on the Rio Grande (Rio Bravo), should 
it be placed in operation prior to the expiration of said period, Mexico 
will cooperate with the United States to relieve, in times of drought, 
any lack of water needed to irrigate the lands now under irrigation in 
the Lower Rio Grande Valley in the United States, and for this purpose 
Mexico will release water from El Azucar- reservoir on the San Juan 
River and allow that water to run through its system of canals back 
into the San Juan River in order that the United States may divert 
such water from the Rio Grande (Rio Bravo). Such releases shall 
be made on condition that they do not affect the Mexican irrigation 
system, provided that Mexico shall, in any event, except in cases 
of extraordinary drought or serious accident to its hydraulic works, re- 
lease and make available to the United States for its use the quantities 
requested, under the following conditions: that during the said eight 
years there shall be made available a total of 160,000 acre-feet (197,- 
358,000 cubic meters) and up to 40,000 acre-feet (49,340,000 cubic 
meters) in any one year: that the water shall be made available as 
requested at rates not exceeding 750 cubic feet (21.2 cubic meters) 
per second; that when the rates of flow requested and made available 
have been more than 500 cubic feet (14.2 cubic meters) per second 
the period of release shall not extend beyond fifteen consecutive days ; 
and that at least thirty days must elapse between any two periods of 
release during which rates of flow in excess of 500 cubic feet (14.2 
cubic meters) per second have been requested and made available. In 
addition to the guaranteed flow, Mexico shall release from El Aziicar 
reservoir and conduct through its canal system and the San Juan 
River, for use in the United States during periods of drought and 
after satisfying the needs of Mexican users, any excess water that 
does not in the opinion of the Mexican Section have to be stored and 
that may be needed for the irrigation of lands which were under 
irrigation during the year 1943 in the Lower Rio Grande Valley in 
the United States. 

ARTICLE 27 

The provisions of Articles 10, 11, and 15 of this Treaty shall not 
be applied during a period of five } r ears from the date of the entry 
into force of this Treaty, or until the Davis dam and the major 
Mexican diversion structure on the Colorado River are placed in 
operation, should these works be placed in operation prior to the 
expiration of said period. In the meantime Mexico may construct 
and operate at its expense a temporary diversion structure in the bed 
of the Colorado River in territor} r of the United States for the purpose 
of diverting water into the Alamo Canal, provided that the plans for 
such structure and the construction and operation thereof shall be 
subject to the approval of the United States Section. During this 
period of time the United States will make available in the river at 
such diversion structure river flow not currently required in the 
United States, and the United States will cooperate with Mexico 






121 

to the end that the latter may satisfy its irrigation requirements 
within the limits of those requirements for lands irrigated in Mexico 
from the Colorado River during the year 1943. 

VII. Final Provisions 

ARTICLE 28 

This Treaty shall be ratified and the ratifications thereof shall be 
exchanged in Washington. It shall enter into force on the day of the 
exchange of ratifications and shall continue in force until terminated 
by another Treaty concluded for that purpose between the two 
Governments. 

In witness whereof the respective Plenipotentiaries have signed 
this Treaty and have hereunto affixed their seals. 

Done in duplicate in the English and Spanish languages, in Wash- 
ington on this third day of February, 1944. 

For the Government of the United States of America: 

[seal] Cordell Hull, 

George S. Messersmith, 
Lawrence M. Lawsox. 

For the Government of the United Mexican States: 
[seal] F. Castillo Xajera, 

Rafael Fernandez MacGregor. 

Protocol 

The Government of the United States of America and the Govern- 
ment of the United Mexican States agree and understand that: 

Wherever, by virtue of the provisions of the Treaty between the 
United States of America and the United Mexican States, signed in 
Washington on February 3, 1944, relating to the utilization of the 
waters of the Colorado and Tijuana Rivers and of the Rio Grande 
from Fort Quitman, Texas, to the Gulf of Mexico, specific functions 
are imposed on, or exclusive jurisdiction is vested in, either of the 
Sections of the International Boundary and Water Commission, 
which involve the construction or use of works for storage or con- 
veyance of water, flood control, stream gaging, or for any other 
purpose, which are situated wholly within the territory of the country 
of that Section, and which are to be used only partly for the per- 
formance of treaty provisions, such jurisdiction shall be exercised, 
and such functions, including the construction, operation and main- 
tenance of the said works, shall be performed and carried out by the 1 
Federal agencies of that country which now or hereafter may be 
authorized by domestic law to construct, or to operate and maintain. 
such works. Such functions or jurisdictions shall be exercised in 
conformity with the provisions of the Treaty and in cooperation with 
the respective Section of the Commission, to the end that all inter- 
national obligations and functions may be coordinated and fulfilled. 

The works to be constructed or used on or along the boundary, 
and those to be constructed or used exclusively for the discharge of 
treaty stipulations, shall be under the jurisdiction of the Commission 
or of the respective Section, in accordance with the provisions of 



122 

the Treaty. In carrying out the construction of such works the 
Sections of the Commission may utilize the services of public or 
private organizations in accordance with the laws of their respective 
countries. 

This Protocol, which shall be regarded as an integral part of the 
aforementioned Treaty signed in Washington on February 3, 1944, 
shall be ratified and the ratifications thereof shall be exchanged in 
Washington. This Protocol shall be effective beginning with the day 
of the entry into force of the Treaty and shall continue effective so 
long as the Treaty remains in force. 

In witness whereof the respective Plenipotentiaries have signed 
this Protocol and have hereunto affixed their seals. 

Done in duplicate, in the English and Spanish languages, in Wash- 
ington, this fourteenth day of November, 1944. 

For The Government of The United States of America: 

[seal] E. R. Stettixius Jr. 

Acting Secretary of State 
of the United States of America 

For The Government of The United Mexican States: 
[seal] F. Casiillo Najera 

Ambassador Extraordinary and Plenipotentiary 

of the United Mexican States in Washington 

And whereas the Senate of the United States of America bv their 
Resolution of April 18, 1945, two-thirds of the Senators present con- 
curring therein did advise and consent to the ratification of the said 
treaty and protocol, subject to certain understandings, the text of 
which Resolution is word for word as follows: 

"Resolved (two-thirds of the Senators present concurring therein), 
That the Senate advise and consent to the ratification of Executive 
A, Seventy -eighth Congress, second session, a treat}' between the 
United States of America and the United Mexican States, signed at 
Washington on February 3, 1944, relating to the utilization of the 
waters of the Colorado and Tijuana Rivers and of the Rio Grande 
from Fort Quitman, Texas, to the Gulf of Mexico, and Executive 
H, Seventy-eighth Congress, second session, a protocol, signed at 
Washington on November 14, 1944, supplementary to the treaty, 
subject to the following understandings, and that tliese understand- 
ings will be mentioned in the ratification of this treaty as conveying 
the true meaning of the treaty, and will in effect form a part of the 
treaty : 

"(a) That no commitment for works to be built by the United 
States in whole or in part at its expense, or for expenditures by the 
United States, other than those specifically provided for in the 
treaty, shall be made by the Secretary of State of the United States, 
the Commissioner of the United States Section of the International 
Boundary and Water Commission, the United States Section of said 
Commission, or any other officer or employee of the United States, 
without prior approval of the Congress of the United States. It is 
understood that the works to be built by the United States, in whole 
or in part at its expense, and the expenditures by the United States, 
which are specifically provided for in the treaty, are as follows: 



123 

"1. The joint construction of the three storage and flood-control 
dams on the Rio Grande below Fort Quitman, Texas, mentioned in 
article 5 of the treaty. 

"2. The dams and other joint works required for the diversion of 
the flow of the Rio Grande mentioned in subparagraph II of article 
5 of the treaty, it being understood that the commitment of the 
United States to make expenditures under this subparagraph is 
limited to its share of the cost of one dam and works appurtenant 
thereto. 

"3. Stream-gaging stations which may be required under the 
provisions of section (j) of article 9 of the treat}' and of subparagraph 
(d) of article 12 of the treaty. 

"4. The Davis Dam and Reservoir mentioned in subparagraph 
(b) of article 12 of the treaty. 

"5. The joint flood-control investigations, preparation of plans, 
and reports on the Rio Grande below Fort Quitman required by the 
provisions of article 6 of the treaty. 

"6. The joint flood-control investigations, preparations of plans, 
and reports on the lower Colorado River between the Imperial Dam 
and the Gulf of California required b}~ article 13 of the treaty. 

"7. The joint investigations, preparation of plans, and reports 
on the establishment of hydroelectric plants at the international 
dams on the Rio Grande below Fort Quitman provided for by article 
7 of the treaty. 

"8. The studies, investigations, preparation of plans, recom- 
mendations, reports, and other matters dealing with the Tijuana 
River system provided for by the first paragraph (including the 
numbered subparagraphs) of article 16 of the treaty. 

"(b) Insofar as they affect persons and property in the territorial 
limits of the United States, the powers and functions of the Secre- 
tary of State of the United States, the Commissioner of the United 
States Section of the International Boundary and Water Commis- 
sion, the United States Section of said Commission, and any other 
officer or employee of the United States, shall be subject to the 
statutory and constitutional controls and processes. Nothing con- 
tained in the treaty or protocol shall be construed as impairing 
the power of the Congress of the United States to define the term- of 
office of members of the United States Section of the International 
Boundary and Water Commission or to provide for their appoint- 
ment by the President by and with the advice and consent of the 
Senate or otherwise. 

"(c) That nothing contained in the treaty or protocol shall be 
construed as authorizing the Secretary of State of the United States, 
the Commissioner of the United States Section of the International 
Boundary and Water Commission, or the United States Section of 
said Commission, directly or indirectly to alter or control the dis- 
tribution of water to users within the territorial limits of any of the 
individual States. 

"(d) That 'international dam or reservoir' means a dam or reser- 
voir built across the common boundary between the two countries. 

"(e) That the words 'international plants,', appearing in article 19, 
mean only hydroelectric generating plants in connection with dams 
built across the common boundary between the two countries. 



76-432 O - 76 



124 

"(f) That the words 'electric current', appearing in article 19, 
mean hydroelectric power generated at an international plant. 

"(g) That by the use of the words 'The jurisdiction of the Com- 
mission shall extend to the limitrophe parts of the Rio Grande (Rio 
Bravo) and the Colorado River, to the land boundary between the 
two countries, and to works located upon their common boundary 
* * *' in the first sentence of the fifth paragraph of article 2, is 
meant: 'The jurisdiction of the Commission shall extend and be 
limited to the limitrophe parts of the Rio Grande (Rio Bravo) and 
the Colorado River, to the land boundary between the two countries, 
and to works located upon their common boundary * * *.' 

"(h) The word 'agreements' whenever used in subparagraphs (a), 
(c), and (d) of article 24 of the treaty shall refer only to agreements 
entered into pursuant to and subject to the provisions and limitations 
of treaties in force between the United States of America and the 
United Mexican States. 

"(i) The word 'disputes' in the second paragraph of article 2 shall 
have reference only to disputes between the Governments of the 
United States of America and the United Mexican States. 

"(j) First, that the one million seven hundred thousand acre-feet 
specified in subparagraph (b) of article 10 includes and is not in 
addition to the one million five hundred thousand acre-feet, the 
delivery of which to Mexico is guaranteed in subparagraph (a) of 
article 10; second, that the one million five hundred thousand acre- 
feet specified in three places in said subparagraph (b) is identical 
with the one million five hundred thousand acre-feet specified in said 
subparagraph (a) ; third, that any use by Mexico under said sub- 
paragraph (b) of quantities of water arriving at the Mexican points 
of diversion in excess of said one million five hundred thousand acre- 
feet shall not give rise to any future claim of right by Mexico in 
excess of said guaranteed quantity of one million five hundred thou- 
sand acre-feet of water. 

"(k) The United States recognizes a duty to require that the 
protective structures to be constructed under article 12, paragraph 
(a), of this treaty, are so constructed, operated, and maintained as 
to adequately prevent damage to property and lands within the 
United States from the construction and operation of the diversion 
structure referred to in said paragraph." 

And whereas the said treaty and protocol were duly ratified by 
the President of the United States of America on November 1, 1945, 
in pursuance of the aforesaid advice and consent of the Senate and 
subject to the aforesaid understandings on the part of the United 
States of America; 

And whereas the said treaty and protocol were duly ratified by 
the President of the United Mexican States on October 16, 1945, in 
pursuance and according to the terms of a Decree of September 27, 
1945 of the Senate of the United Mexican States approving the said 
treaty and protocol and approving the said understandings on the 
part of the United States of America in all that refers to the rights 
and obligations between the parties; 

And whereas it is provided in Article 28 of the said treaty that 
the treaty shall enter into force on the day of the exchange of 
ratifications; 






125 

And whereas it is provided in the said protocol that the protocol 
shall be regarded as an integral part of the said treaty and shall be 
effective beginning with the day of the entry into force of the said 
treaty; 

And whereas the respective instruments of ratification of the said 
treaty and protocol were duly exchanged, and a protocol of exchange of 
instruments of ratification was signed in the English and Spanish 
languages, by the respective Plenipotentiaries of the United State- of 
America and the United Mexican States on November 8, 1945, the 
English text of which protocol of exchange of instruments of ratifica- 
tion reads in part as follows: 

"The ratification by the Government of the United States of 
America of the treaty and protocol aforesaid recites in their en- 
tirety the understandings contained in the resolution of April 18, 
1945 of the Senate of the United States of America advising and 
consenting to ratification, the text of which resolution was com- 
municated by the Government of the United States of America to 
the Government of the United Mexican States. The ratification 
by the Government of the United Mexican States of the treaty and 
protocol aforesaid is effected, in the terms of its instrument of 
ratification, in conformity to the Decree of September 27, 1945 of 
the Senate of the United Mexican States approving the treaty and 
protocol aforesaid and approving also the aforesaid understandings 
on the part of the United States of America in all that refers to the 
rights and obligations between both parties, and in which the Mexican 
Senate refrains from considering, because it is not competent to 
pass judgment upon them, the provisions which relate exclusively 
to the internal application of the treaty within the United States 
of America and by its own authorities, and which are included in the 
understandings set forth under the letter (a) in its first part to the 
period preceding the words 'It is understood' and under the letters 
(b) and (c). n 

Now, therefore, be it known that I, Harry S. Truman, President 
of the United States of America, do hereby proclaim and make public 
the said treaty and the said protocol supplementary thereto, to the 
end that the same and every article and clause thereof may be ob- 
served and fulfilled with good faith, on and from the eighth day of 
November, one thousand nine hundred forty-five, by the United 
States of America and by the citizens of the United States of America 
and all other persons subject to the jurisdiction thereof. 

In testimony whereof, 1 have hereunto set my hand and caused 
the Seal of the United States of America to be affixed. 

Done at the city of Washington this twenty-seventh day of Novem- 
ber in the year of our Lord one thousand nine hundred forty-five and 
of the Independence of the United States of America the one hundred 
seventieth. 

[seal] Harry S. Truman. 

By the President: 
James F. Byrnes, 
Secretary of State. 



5. Permanent and Definitive Solttiox to the International 
Problem of the Salinity of the Colorado River. 

The Commission met at the Secretariat of Foreign Relations, at 
Mexico, D.F., at 5:00 p.m. on August 30, 1973, pursuant to the 
instructions received by the two Commissioners from their respective 
Governments, in order to incorporate in a Minute of the Commission 
the joint recommendations which were made to their respective 
Presidents by the Special Representative of President Richard Nixon, 
Ambassador Herbert Brownell. and the Secretary of Foreign Relations 
of Mexico, Lie. Emilio O. Rabasa, and which have been approved by 
the Presidents for a permanent and definitive solution of the inter- 
national problem of the salinity of the Colorado River, resulting from 
the negotiations which they, and their technical and juridical advisers, 
held in June, July and August of 1973. in compliance with the refer- 
ences to this matter contained in the Joint Communique of Presidents 
Richard Nixon and Luis Echeverria of June 17, 1972. 

Accordingly, the Commission submits for the approval of the two 
Governments the following 

RESOLUTION 

1. Referring to the annual volume of Colorado River waters guar- 
anteed to Mexico under the Treatv of 1944, of 1,500,000 acre-feet 
(1,850,234,000 cubic meters: 

(a) The United States shall adopt measures to assure that not 
earlier than January 1, 1974, and no later than July 1, 1974, the 
approximately 1,360,000 acre-feet (1,677,545,000 cubic meters) de- 
livered to Mexico upstream of Morelos Dam, have an annual average 
salinity of no more than 115 p.p.m.±30 p. p.m. U.S. count (121 
p. p.m. ±30 p. p.m. Mexican count) over the annual average salinity 
of Colorado River waters which arrive at Imperial Dam, with the 
understanding that any waters that may be delivered to Mexico under 
the Treaty of 1944 by means of the All American Canal shall be con- 
sidered as having been delivered upstream of Morelos Dam for the 
purpose of computing this salinity. 

(b) The United State< will continue to deliver to Mexico on the 
land boundary at San Luis and in the limitrophe section of the Colo- 
rado River downstream from Morelos Dam approximately 140. 000 
acre-feet (172,689,000 cubic meter-) annually with a salinity sub- 
stantially the same as that of the waters customarily delivered there. 

(c) Any decrease in deliveries under point 1(b) will be made up by 
an equal increase in deliveries under point 1(a). 

(d) Any other substantial changes in the aforementioned volumes 
of water at the stated location- must be agreed to by the Commission. 

(e) Implementation of the measures referred to in point 1(a) above 
is subject to the requirement in point 10 of the authorization of the 
necessary works. 

L27 



128 



2. The life of Minute No. 241 shall be terminated upon approval 
of the present Minute. From September 1, 1973, until the provisions 
of point 1(a) become effective, the United States shall discharge to 
the Colorado River downstream from Morelos Dam volumes of 
drainage waters from the Wellton-Mohawk District at the annual 
rate of 118,000 acre-feet (145,551,000 cubic meters) and substitute 
therefor an equal volume of other waters to be discharged to the 
Colorado River above Morelos Dam; and, pursuant to the decision 
of President Echeverria expressed in the Joint Communique of 
June 17, 1972, the United States shall discharge to the Colorado 
River downstream from Morelos Dam the drainage waters of the 
Wellton-Mohawk District that do not form a part of the volumes of 
drainage waters referred to above, with the understanding that this 
remaining volume will not be replaced by substitution waters. The 
Commission shall continue to account for the drainage waters dis- 
charged below Morelos Dam as part of those described in the pro- 
visions of Article 10 of the Water Treaty of February 3, 1944. 

3. As a part of the measures referred to in point 1(a), the United 
States shall extend in its territory the concrete-lined Wellton-Mohawk 
bypass drain from Morelos Dam to the Arizona-Sonora international 
boundary, and operate and maintain the portions of the Wellton- 
Mohawk bypass drain located in the United States. 

4. To complete the drain referred to in point 3, Mexico, through 
the Commission and at the expense of the United States, shall con- 
struct, operate and maintain an extension of the concrete-lined 
bypass drain from the Arizona-Sonora international boundary to 
the Santa Clara Slough of a capacity of 353 cubic feet (10 cubic 
meters) per second. Mexico shall permit the United States to dis- 
charge through this drain to the Santa Clara Slough all or a portion 
of the Wellton-Mohawk drainage waters, the volumes of brine from 
such desalting operations in the United States as are carried out to 
implement the Resolution of this Minute, and any other volumes of 
brine which Mexico may agree to accept. It is understood that no 
radioactive material or nuclear wastes shall be discharged through 
this drain, and that the United States shall acquire no right to navi- 
gation, servitude or easement by reason of the existence of the drain, 
nor other legal rights, except as expressly provided in this- point. 

5. Pending the conclusion by the Governments of the United 
States and Mexico of a comprehensive agreement on groundwater 
in the border areas, each country shall limit pumping of groundwaters 
in its territory within five miles (eight kilometers) of the Arizona- 
Sonora boundary near San Luis to 160,000 acre-feet (197,358,000 
cubic meters) annually. 

6. With the objective of avoiding future problems, the United 
States and Mexico shall consult with each other prior to undertaking 
any new development of either the surface or the groundwater re- 
sources, or undertaking substantial modifications or present develop- 
ments, in its own territory in the border area that might adversely 
affect the other country. 

7. The United States will support efforts by Mexico to obtain 
appropriate financing on favorable terms for the improvement and 
rehabilitation of the Mexicali Valley. The United States will also 
provide nonreimbursable assistance on a basis mutually acceptable 



129 

to both countries exclusively for those aspects of the Mexican reha- 
bilitation program of the Mexieali Valley relating to the salinity 
problem, including tile drainage. In order to comply with the above- 
mentioned purposes, both countries will undertake negotiations as 
soon as possible. 

8. The United States and Mexico shall recognize the undertakings 
and understandings contained in this Resolution as constituting the 
permanent and definitive solution of the salinity problem referred to 
in the Joint Communique of President Richard Nixon and President 
Luis Echeverria dated June 17, 1972. 

9. The measures required to implement this Resolution shall be 
undertaken and completed at the earliest practical date. 

10. This Minute is subject to the express approval of both Govern- 
ments by exchange of Notes. It shall enter into force upon such ap- 
proval; provided, however, that the provisions which are dependent 
for their implementation on the construction of works or on other 
measures which require expenditure of funds by the United States, 
shall become effective upon the notification by the United States to 
Mexico of the authorization by the United States Congress of said 
funds, which will be sought promptly. 

Thereupon, the meeting adjourned. 

J. F. Friedkin, 
Commissioner of the United States. 
D. Herrera J., 

Commissioner of Mexico. 
F. H. Sacksteder Jr., 
Secretary of the United States Section. 
Fernando Rivas S., 
Secretary of the Mexican Section. 



6. Public Law 93-320 93rd Congress, H.R. 12165 June 24, 1974 

AN ACT To authorize the construction, operation, and maintenance of certain 
works in the Colorado River Basin to control the salinity of water delivered to 
users in the United States and Mexico. 

Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United 
States of America in Congress assembled, That this Act may be cited 
as the "Colorado River Basin Salinity Control Act". 

TITLE I— PROGRAMS DOWNSTREAM FROM IMPERIAL 

DAM 

Sec 101. (a) The Secretary of the Interior, hereinafter referred to 
as the "Secretary", is authorized and directed to proceed with a pro- 
gram of works of improvement for the enhancement and protection 
of the quality of water available in the Colorado River for use in the 
United States and the Republic of Mexico, and to enable the United 
States to comply with its obligations under the agreement with 
Mexico of August 30, 1973 (Minute No. 242 of the International 
Boundary and Water Commission, United States and Mexico), con- 
cluded pursuant to the Treaty of February 3, 1944 (TS 994), in ac- 
cordance with the provisions of this Act. 

(b)(1) The Secretary is authorized to construct, operate, and main- 
tain a desalting complex, including (1) a desalting plant to reduce 
the salinity of drain water from the Wellton-Mohawk division of the 
Gila project, Arizona (hereinafter referred to as the division), includ- 
ing a pretreatment plant for settling, softening, and filtration of the 
drain water to be desalted; (2) the necessary appurtenant works 
including the intake pumping plant system, product waterline, power 
transmission facilities, and permanent operating facilities; (3) the 
necessary extension in the United States and Mexico of the existing 
bypass drain to carry the reject stream from the desalting plant and 
other drainage waters to the Santa Clara Slough in Mexico, with the 
part in Mexico, subject to arrangements made pursuant to section 
101(d); (4) replacement of the metal flume in the existing main out- 
let drain extension with a concrete siphon; (5) reduction of the quan- 
tity of irrigation return flows through acquisition of lands to reduce 
the size of the division, and irrigation efficiency improvements to 
minimize return flows; (6) acquire on behalf of the United State- 
such lands or interest in lands in the Painted Rock Reservoir as may 
be necessary to operate the project in accordance with the obligations 
of Minute No. 242, and (7) all associated facilities including roads, 
railroad spur, and transmission lines. 

(2) The desalting plant shall be designed to treat approximately 
one hundred and twenty-nine million gallons a day of drain water 
using advanced technology commercially available. The plant shall 
effect recovery initially of not less than 70 per centum of the drain 
water as product water, and shall effect reduction of not less than 90 

(131) 



76-432 O - 76 



132 

per centum of the dissolved solids in the feed water. The Secretary 
shall use sources of electric power supply for the desalting complex 
that will not diminish the supply of power to preference customers 
from Federal power systems operated by the Secretary. All costs 
associated with the desalting plant shall be nonreimbursable. 

(c) Replacement of the reject stream from the desalting plant and 
of any Wellton-Mohawk drainage water bypassed to the Santa Clara 
Slough to accomplish essential operation except at such times when 
there exists surplus water of the Colorado River under the terms of 
the Mexican Water Treaty of 1944, is recognized as a national obli- 
gation as provided in section 202 of the Colorado River Basin Project 
Act (82 Stat. 895). Studies to identify feasible measures to provide 
adequate replacement water shall be completed not later than June 30, 
1980. Said studies shall be limited to potential sources within the States 
of Arizona, California, Colorado, New Mexico, and those portions of 
Nevada, Utah, and Wyoming which are within the natural drainage 
basin of the Colorado River. Measures found necessary to replace the 
reject stream from the desalting plant and any Wellton-Mohawk 
drainage bypassed to the Santa Clara Slough to accomplish essential 
operations may be undertaken independently of the national obliga- 
tion set forth in section 202 of the Colorado River Basin Project Act. 

(d) The Secretary is hereby authorized to advance funds to the 
United States section, International Boundary and Water Commis- 
sion (IBWC), for construction, operation, and maintenance by 
Mexico pursuant to Minute No. 242 of that portion of the bypass drain 
within Mexico. Such funds shall be transferred to an appropriate 
Mexican agency, under arrangements to be concluded by the IBWC 
providing for the construction, operation, and maintenance of such 
facility by Mexico. 

(e) Any desalted water not needed for the purposes of this title 
may be exchanged at prices and under terms and conditions satis- 
factory to the Secretary and the proceeds therefrom shall be deposited 
in the General Fund of the Treasury. The city of Yuma, Arizona, 
shall have first right of refusal to any such water. 

(f) For the purpose of reducing the return flows from the division 
to one hundred and seventy-five thousand acre-feet or less, annually, 
the Secretary is authorized to: 

(1) Accelerate the cooperative program of Irrigation Man- 
agement Services with the Wellton-Mohawk Irrigation and 
Drainage District, hereinafter referred to as the district, for the 
purpose of improving irrigation efficiency. The district shall bear 
its share of the cost of such program as determined by the 
Secretary. 

(2) Acquire, by purchase or through eminent domain or 
exchange, to the extent determined by him to be appropriate, 
lands or interests in lands to reduce the existing seventy-five 
thousand developed and undeveloped irrigable acres authorized 
by the Act of July 30, 1947 (61 Stat. G28), known as the Gila 
Reauthorization Act, The initial reduction in irrigable acreage 
shall be limited to approximately ten thousand acres. If the Sec- 
retary determines that the irrigable acreage of the division must 
be reduced below sixty-five thousand acres of irrigable lands to 
carry out the purpose of this section, the Secretary is authorized, 



133 

with the consent of the district, to acquire additional lands, as 
may be deemed by him to be appropriate. 

(g) The Secretary is authorized to dispose of the acquired lands 
and interests therein on terms and conditions satisfactory to him and 
meeting the objective of this Act. 

(h) The Secretary is authorized, either in conjunction with or in 
lieu of land acquisition, to assist water users in the division in install- 
ing system improvements, such as ditch lining, change of field layouts, 
automatic equipment, sprinkler systems and bubbler systems, as a 
means of increasing irrigation efficiencies: Provided, however, That 
all costs associated with the improvements authorized herein and allo- 
cated to the water users on the basis of benefits received, as determined 
by the Secretary, shall be reimbursed to the United States in amounts 
and on terms and conditions satisfactory to the Secretary. 

(i) The Secretary is authorized to amend the contract between the 
United States and the district dated March 4, 1952, as amended, to 
provide that — - 

(1) the portion of the existing repayment obligation owing to 
the United States allocable to irrigable acreage eliminated from 
the division for the purposes of this title, as determined by the 
Secretary, shall be nonreimbursable; and 

(2) if deemed appropriate by the Secretary, the district shall 
be given credit against its outstanding repayment obligation to 
offset any increase in operation and maintenance assessments per 
acre which may result from the district's decreased operation and 
maintenance base, all as determined by the Secretary. 

(j) The Secretary is authorized to acquire through the Corps of 
Engineers fee title to, or other necessary interests in, additional lands 
above the Painted Rock Dam in Arizona that are required for the 
temporary storage capacity needed to permit operation of the dam 
and reservoir in times of serious flooding in accordance with the obli- 
gations of the United States under Minute Xo. 242. No funds shall be 
expended for acquisition of land or interests therein until it is finally 
determined by a Federal court of competent jurisdiction that the 
Corps of Engineers presently lacks legal authority to use said lands 
for this purpose. Nothing contained in this title nor any action taken 
pursuant to it shall be deemed to be a recognition or admission of any 
obligation to the owners of such land on the part of the United States 
or a limitation or deficiency in the rights or powers of the United 
States with respect to such lands or the operation of the reservoir. 

(k) To the extent desirable to carry out sections 101(f)(1) and 
101(h), the Secretary may transfer funds to the Secretary of Agri- 
culture as may be required for technical assistance to farmers, conduct 
of research and demonstrations, and such related investigations as are 
required to achieve higher on-farm irrigation efficiencies. 

(1) All cost associated with the desalting complex shall be nonreim- 
bursable except as provided in sections 101(f) and 101(h). 

Sec. 102. (a) To assist in meeting salinity control objective- of 
Minute Xo. 242 during an interim period, the Secretary i- authorized 
to construct a new concrete-lined canal or, to line the presently 
unlined portion of the Coachella Canal of the Boulder ( !anyon project, 
( Jalifornia, from station 2 plus 20 to the beginning of siphon numbered 
7, a length of approximately forty-nine miles. The United State- shall 
be entitled to temporary use of a quantity of water, for the purpose 



134 

of meeting the salinity control objectives of Minute No. 242, during 
an interim period, equal to the quantit}^ of water conserved by con- 
structing or lining the said canal. The interim period shall commence 
on completion of construction or lining said canal and shall end the 
first year that the Secretary delivers main stream Colorado River 
water to California in an amount less than the sum of the quantities 
requested by (1) the California agencies under contracts made pur- 
suant to section 5 of the Boulder Canyon Project Act (45 Stat. 1057), 
and (2) Federal establishments to meet their water rights acquired 
in California in accordance with the Supreme Court decree in Arizona 
against California (376 U.S. 340). 

(b) The charges for total construction shall be repayable without 
interest in equal annual installments over a period of forty years 
beginning in the year following completion of construction : Provided, 
That, repayment shall be prorated between the United States and the 
Coachella Valley Count} r Water District, and the Secretary is author- 
ized to enter into a repayment contract with Coachella Valley County 
Water District for that purpose. Such contract shall provide that 
annual repayment installments shall be nonreimbursable during the 
interim period, defined in section 102(a) of this title and shall provide 
that after the interim period, said annual repayment installments or 
portions thereof, shall be paid by Coachella Valley County Water 
District. 

(c) The Secretary is authorized to acquire b}^ purchase, eminent 
domain, or exchange private lands or interests therein, as may be 
determined by him to be appropriate, within the Imperial Irrigation 
District on the Imperial East Mesa which receive, or which have been 
granted rights to receive, water from Imperial Irrigation District's 
capacity in the Coachella Canal. Costs of such acquisitions shall be 
nonreimbursable and the Secretary shall return such lands to the 
public domain. The United States shall not acquire an}' water rights 
by reason of this land acquisition. 

(d) The Secretary is authorized to credit Imperial Irrigation Dis- 
trict against its final payments for certain outstanding construction 
charges payable to the United States on account of capacity to be 
relinquished in the Coachella Canal as a result of the canal lining 
program, all as determined by the Secretary: Provided, That, relin- 
quishment of capacity shall not affect the established basis for allo- 
cating operation and maintenance costs of the main All-American 
Canal to existing contractors. 

(e) The Secretary is authorized and directed to cede the following 
land to the Cocopah Tribe of Indians, subject to rights-of-way for 
existing levees, to be held in trust by the United States for the Cocopah 
Tribe of Indians: 

Township 9 south, range 25 west of the Gila and Salt River 
meridian, Arizona; 

Section 25: Lots, 18, 19, 20,21,22, and 23: 
Section 26: Lots 1, 12, 13, 14, and 15; 
Section 27 : Lot 3 ; and all accretion to the above described 
lands. 
The Secretary is authorized and directed to construct three bridges, 
one of which shall be capable fo accommodating heavy vehicular 
traffic, over the portion of the bypass drain which crosses the reserva- 
tion of the Cocopah Tribe of Indians. The transfer of lands to the 



135 

Cocopah Indian Reservation and the construction of bridges across the 
bypass drain shall constitute full and complete payment to said tribe 
for the rights-of-way required for construction of the bypass drain 
and electrical transmission lines for works authorized by this title. 
Sec. 103. (a) The Secretary is authorized to: 

(1) Construct, operate, and maintain, consistent with Minute 
Xo. 242, well fields capable of furnishing approximately one hun- 
dred and sixty thousand acre-feet of water per year for use in the 
United States and for delivery to Mexico in satisfaction of the 
1944 Mexican Water Treaty. 

(2) Acquire by purchase, eminent domain, or exchange, to the 
extent determined by him to be appropriate, approximately 
twenty-three thousand five hundred acres of lands or interests 
therein within approximately five miles of the Mexican border 
on the Yuma Mesa: Provided, however, That any such lands 
which are presently owned by the State of Arizona may be 
acquired or exchanged for Federal lands. 

(3) Any lands removed from the jurisdiction of the Yuma 
Mesa Irrigation and Drainage District pursuant to clause (2) 
of this subsection which were available for use under the Gila 
Reauthorization Act (61 Stat. 628), shall be replaced with like 
lands within or adjacent to the Yuma Mesa division of the project. 
In the development of these substituted lands or any other lands 
within the Gila project, the Secretary may provide for full utiliza- 
tion of the Gila Gravity Main Canal in addition to contracted 
capacities. 

(b) The cost of work provided for in this section, including delivery 
of water to Mexico, shall be nonreimbursable; except to the extent 
that the waters furnished are used in the United States. 

Sec. 104. The Secretary is authorized to provide for modifications 
of the projects authorized by this title to the extent he determines 
appropriate for purposes of meeting the international settlement objec- 
tive of this title at the lowest overall cost to the United States. Xo 
funds for any such modification shall be expended until the expiration 
of sixty days after the proposed modification has been submitted to 
the appropriate committees of the Congress, unless the Congress 
approves an earlier date by concurrent resolution. The Secretary 
shall notify the Governors of the Colorado River Basin States of such 
modifications. 

Sec. 105. The Secretary is hereby authorized to enter into contracts 
that he deems necessary to carry out the provisions of this title in 
advance of the appropriation of funds therefor. 

Sec 106. In carrying out the provisions of this title, the Secretary 
shall consult and cooperate with the Secretary of State, the Adminis- 
trator of the Environmental Protection Agency, the Secretary of Agri- 
culture, and other affected Federal, State, and local agencies. 

Sec 107. X T othing in this Act shall be deemed to modify the National 
Environmental Policy Act of 1969, the Federal Water Pollution Con- 
trol Act, as amended, or, except as expressly stated herein, the pro- 
visions of any other Federal law. 

Sec 108. There is hereby authorized to be appropriated the sum 
of $121,500,000 for the construction of the works and accomplish- 
ment of the purpose^ authorized in sections 101 and 102, mu\ $34,000,- 
000 to accomplish the purposes of section 103, based on April L973 



136 

prices, plus or minus such amounts as may be justified by reason of 
ordinary fluctuations in construction costs involved therein, and such 
sums as may be required to operate and maintain such works and to 
provide for such modifications as may be made pursuant to section 
104. There is further authorized to be appropriated such sums as may 
be necessary to pay condemnation awards in excess of appraised values 
and to cover costs required in connection with the Uniform Relocation 
Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970 (Public 
Law 90-646). 

TITLE II— MEASURES UPSTREAM FROM IMPERIAL DAM 

Sec. 201. (a) The Secretary of the Interior shall implement the 
salinit3 r control policy adopted for the Colorado River in the "Con- 
clusions and Recommendations" published in the Proceedings of the 
Reconvened Seventh Session of the Conference in the Matter of 
Pollution of the Interstate Waters of the Colorado River and Its 
Tributaries in the States of California, Colorado, Utah, Arizona, 
Nevada, New Mexico, and Wvoming, held in Denver, Colorado, on 
April 26-27, 1972, under the authority of section 10 of the Federal 
Water Pollution Control Act (33 U.S.C. 1160), and approved by the 
Administrator of the Environmental Protection Agencv on June 9, 
1972. 

(b) The Secretary is hereb}' directed to expedite the investigation, 
planning, and implementation of the salinity control program gen- 
erally as described in chapter VI of the Secretary's report entitled, 
"Colorado River Water Qualitv Improvement Program, Februarv 
1972." 

(c) In conformity with section 201(a) of this title and the authority 
of the Environmental Protection Agency under Federal laws, the 
Secretary, the Administrator of the Environmental Protection 
Agency, and the Secretary of Agriculture are directed to cooperate 
and coordinate their activities effectively to carry out the objective 
of this title. 

Sec. 202. The Secretary is authorized to construct, operate, and 
maintain the following salinity control units as the initial stage of the 
Colorado River Basin salinity control program. 

(1) The Paradox Valley unit, Montrose County, Colorado, con- 
sisting of facilities for collection and disposition of saline ground 
water of Paradox Valley, including wells, pumps, pipelines, solar 
evaporation ponds, and all necessary appurtenant and associated 
works such as roads, fences, dikes, power transmission facilities, and 
permanent operating facilities. 

(2) The Grand Valley unit, Colorado, consisting of measures and 
all necessary appurtenant and associated works to reduce the seepage 
of irrigation water from the irrigated lands of Grand Valley into the 
ground water and thence into the Colorado River. Measures shall 
include lining of canals and laterals, and the combining of existing 
canals and laterals into fewer and more efficient facilities. Prior to 
initiation of construction of the Grand Valley unit the Secretary shall 
enter into contracts through which the agencies owning, operating, 
and maintaining the water distribution systems in Grand Valley, 
singly or in concert, will assume all obligations relating to the con- 
tinued operation and maintenance of the unit's facilities to the end 



137 

that the maximum reduction of salinity inflow to the Colorado River 
will be achieved. The Secretary is also authorized to provide, as an 
element of ihe Grand Valley unit, for a technical staff to provide infor- 
mation and assistance to water users on means and measures for 
limiting excess water applications to irrigated lands: Provided, That 
such assistance shall not exceed a period of five years after funds first 
become available under this title. The Secretary will enter into agree- 
ments with the Secretary of Agriculture to develop a unified control 
plan for the Grand Valley unit. The Secretary of Agriculture is 
directed to cooperate in the planning and construction of on-farm 
system measures under programs available to that Department. 

(3) The Crystal Geyser unit, Utah, consisting of facilities for col- 
lection and disposition of saline geyser discharges; including dikes, 
pipelines, solar evaporation ponds, and all necessary appurtenant 
works including operating facilities. 

(4) The Las Vegas Wash unit, Nevada, consisting of facilities for 
collection and disposition of saline ground water of Las Vegas Wash, 
including infiltration galleries, pumps, desalter, pipelines, solar evapo- 
ration facilities, and all appurtenant works including but not limited 
to roads, fences, power transmission facilities, and operating facilities. 

Sec. 203. (a) The Secretary is authorized and directed to — 

(1) Expedite completion of the planning reports on the following 
units, described in the Secretary's report, "Colorado River Water 
Quality Improvement Program, February 1972": 

(i) Irrigation source control: Lower Gunnison; Uintah Basin; 
Colorado River Indian Reservation; and Palo Verde Irrigation 
District. 

(ii) Point source control: LaVerkin Springs; Littlefield Springs; 
Glenwood-Dotsero Springs. 

(hi) Diffuse source control; Price River; San Rafael River; 
Dirty Devil River; McElmo Creek; and Big Sandy River. 

(2) Submit each planning report on the units named in section 
203(a)(1) of this title promptly to the Colorado River Basin States 
and to such other parties as the Secretary deems appropriate for their 
review and comments. After receipt of comments on a unit and careful 
consideration thereof, the Secretary shall submit each final report with 
his recommendations, simultaneously, to the President, other con- 
cerned Federal departments and agencies, the Congress, and the 
Colorado River Basin States. 

(b) The Secretary is directed — 

(1) in the investigation, planning, construction, and imple- 
mentation of any salinity control unit involving control of salinity 
from irrigation sources, to cooperate with the Secretary of Agri- 
culture in carrying out research and demonstration projects and 
in implementing on-the-farm improvements and farm manage- 
ment practices and programs which will further the objective of 
this title; 

(2) to undertake research on additional methods for accom- 
plishing the objective of this title, utilizing to the fullest extent 
practicable the capabilities and resources of other Federal depart- 
ments and agencies, interest institutions, States, and private 
organizations. 



138 

Sec. 204. (a) There is hereby created the Colorado River Basin 
Salinity Control Advisory Council composed of no more than three 
members from each State appointed by the Governor of each of the 
Colorado River Basin States. 

(b) The Council shall be advisory only and shall — 

(1) act as liaison between both the Secretaries of Interior and 
Agriculture and the Administrator of the Environmental Pro- 
tection Agency and the States in accomplishing the purposes of 
this title; 

(2) receive reports from the Secretary on the progress of the 
salinity control program and review and comment on said reports; 
and 

(3) recommend to both the Secretary and the Administrator 
of the Environmental Protection Agency appropriate studies of 
further projects, techniques, or methods for accomplishing the 
purposes of this title. 

Sec. 205. (a) The Secretary shall allocate the total costs of each 
unit or separable feature thereof authorized by section 202 of this 
title, as follows: 

(1) In recognition of Federal responsibility for the Colorado 
River as an interstate stream and for international comity with 
Mexico, Federal ownership of the lands of the Colorado River 
Basin from which most of the dissolved salts originate, and the 
policy embodied in the Federal Water Pollution Control Act 
Amendments of 1972 (86 Stat 816), 75 per centum of the total 
costs of construction, operation, maintenance, and replacement 
of each unit or separable feature thereof shall be nonreimbursable. 

(2) Twenty-five per centum of the total costs shall be allocated 
between the Upper Colorado River Basin Fund established by 
section 5(a) of the Colorado River Storage Project Act (70 Stat. 
107) and the Lower Colorado River Basin Development Fund 
established by section 403(a) of the Colorado River Basin Project 
Act (82 Stat. 895), after consultation with the Advisory Council 
created in section 204(a) of this title and consideration of the 
following items: 

(i) benefits to be derived in each basin from the use of 
water of improved quality and the use of works for improved 
water management ; 

(ii) causes of salinity; and 

(iii) availability of revenues in the Low T er Colorado River 
Basin Development Fund and increased revenues to the 
Upper Colorado River Basin Fund made available under 
section 205(d) of this title: Provided, That costs allocated to 
the Upper Colorado River Basin Fund under section 205(a) 
(2) of this title shall not exceed 15 per centum of the costs 
allocated to the Upper Colorado River Basin Fund and the 
Lower Colorado River Basin Development Fund. 

(3) Costs of construction of each unit or separable feature 
thereof allocated to the upper basin and to the lower basin under 
section 205(a)(2) of this title shall be repaid within a fifty-year 
period without interest from the date such unit or separable 
feature thereof is determined by the Secretary to be in operation. 



139 

(b)(1) Costs of construction, operation, maintenance, and replace- 
ment of each unit or separable feature thereof allocated for repayment 
by the lower basin under Section 205(a)(2) of this title shall be paid 
in accordance with subsection 205(b)(2) of this title, from the Lower 
Colorado River Basin Development Fund. 

(2) Section 403(g) of the Colorado River Basin Project Act (82 
Stat. 896) is hereby amended as follows: strike the word "and" after 
the word "Act," in line 8; insert after word "Act," the following "(2) 
for repayment to the general fund of the Treasury the costs of each 
salinity control unit or separable feature thereof payable from the 
Lower Colorado River Basin Development Fund in accordance with 
sections 205(a)(2), 205(a)(3), and 205(b)(1) of the Colorado River 
Salinity Control Act and"; change paragraph (2) to paragraph (3). 

(c) Costs of construction, operation, maintenance, and replacement 
of each unit or separable feature thereof allocated for repayment by 
the upper basin under section 205(a)(2) of this title shall be paid in 
accordance with section 205(d) of this title from the Upper Colorado 
River Basin Fund within the limit of the funds made available under 
section 205(e) of this title. 

(d) Section 5(d) of the Colorado River Storage Project Act (70 
Stat. 108) is hereby amended as follows: strike the word "and" at the 
end of paragraph (3); strike the period after the word "years" at the 
end of paragraph (4) and insert a semicolon in lieu thereof followed by 
the word "and"; add a new paragraph (5) reading: 

"(5) the costs of each salinity control unit or separable feature 
thereof payable from the Upper Colorado River Basin Fund in 
accordance with sections 205(a)(2), 205(a)(3), and 205(c) of 
the Colorado River Salinity Control Act." 

(e) The Secretary is authorized to make upward adjustments in 
rates charged for electrical energy under all contracts administered 
by the Secretary under the Colorado River Storage Project Act (70 
Stat 105, 43 U.S.C. 620) as soon as practicable and to the extent neces- 
sary to cover the costs of construction, operation, maintenance, and 
replacement of units allocated under section 205(a)(2) and in con- 
formity with section 205(a)(3) of this title: Provided, That revenues 
derived from said rate adjustments shall be available solely for the 
construction, operation, maintenance, and replacement of salinity 
control units in the Colorado River Basin herein authorized. 

Sec. 206. Commencing on January 1, 1975, and every two years 
thereafter, the S?cretary shall submit, simultaneously, to the Presi- 
dent, the Congress, and the Advisory Council created in section 204(a) 
of this title, a report on the Colorado River salinity control program 
authorized by this title covering the progress of investigations, plan- 
ning, and construction of salinity control units for the previous fiscal 
year, the effectiveness of such units, anticipated work needed to be 
accomplished in the future to meet the objectives of this title, with 
emphasis on the needs during the five years immediately following 
the date of each report, and any special problems that may be imped- 
ing progress in attaining an effective salinity control program. Said 
report may be included in the biennial report on the quality of water 
of the Colorado River Basin prepared by the Secretary pursuant to 
section 15 of the Colorado River Storage Project Act (70 Stat. Ill; 



140 

43 U.S.C, 602n), section 15 of the Navajo Indian irrigation project, 
and the initial stage of the San Juan Chana Project Act (76 Stat. 
102), and section 6 of the Fryingpan- Arkansas Project Act (76 Stat. 
393.) 

Sec. 207. Except as provided in section 205(b) and 205(d) of this 
title, with respect to the Colorado River Basin Project Act and the 
Colorado River Storage Project Act, respectively, nothing on this title 
shall be construed to alter, amend, repeal, modify, interpret, or be in 
conflict with the provisions of the Colorado River Compact (45 Stat. 
1057), the Upper Colorado River Basin Compact (63 Stat, 31), the 
Water Treaty of 1944 with the United Mexican States (Treaty Series 
994; 59 Stat. 1219), the decree entered by the Supreme Court of the 
United States in Arizona against California and others (376 U.S. 340), 
the Boulder Canvon Project Act (45 Stat 1057), Boulder Canyon 
Project Adjustment Act (54 Stat, 774; 43 U.S.C. 618a), section 15 of 
the Colorado River Storage Project Act (70 Stat. Ill; 43 U.S.C. 
620n), the Colorado River Basin Project Act (82 Stat. 885), section 6 
of the Fryingpan-Arkansas Project Act (76 Stat. 393), section 15 
of the Navajo Indian irrigation project and initial stage of the San 
Juan-Chama Project Act (76 Stat. 102), the National Environmenal 
Policy Act of 1969, and the Federal Water Pollution Control Act, 
as amended. 

Sec. 208. (a) The Secretary is authorized to provide for modifica- 
tions of the projects authorized by this title as determined to be appro- 
priate for purposes of meeting the objective of this title. No funds for 
any such modification shall be expended until the expiration of sixty 
days after the proposed modification has been submitted to appro- 
priate committees of the Congress, and not then if disapproved by 
said committees, except that funds may be expended prior to the 
expiration of such sixty days in any case in which the Congress ap- 
proves an earlier date by concurrent resolution. The Governors of the 
Colorado River Basin States shall be notified of these changes. 

(b) The Secretary is hereby authorized to enter into contracts that 
he deems necessary to carry out the provisions of this title, in advance 
of the appropriation of funds therefor. There is hereby authorized to 
be appropriated the sum of $125,100,000 for the construction of the 
works and for other purposes authorized in section 202 of this title, 
based on April 1973 prices, plus or minus such amounts as may be 
justified by reason of ordinary fluctuations in costs involved therein, 
and such sums as may be required to operate and maintain such works. 
There is further authorized to be appropriated such sums as may be 
necessary to pay condemnation awards in excess of appraised values 
and to cover costs required in connection with the Uniform Relocation 
Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970 (Public 
Law 90-646). 

Sec. 209. As used in this title — 

(a) all terms that are defined in the Colorado River Compact 
shall have the meanings therein defined ; 

(b) "Colorado River Basin States" means the States of Arizona, 
California, Colorado, Nevada, New Mexico, Utah, and Wyoming. 
Approved June 24, 1974. 

o 



1 
UNIVERSITY OF FLORIDA 



3 1262 09113 1473